Approved in Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U. S. 5, 29 L. 537, 6 S. Ct. 244, Tellman v. Baltimore, etc., Ry. Co., 45 Fed. 157, Horton v. Monroe, 98 Mich. 198, 57 N. W. 110, Fisher v. March, 26 Gratt. 778, Gilchrist v. West Virginia Oil, etc., Co., 21 W. Va. 118, 45 Am. Rep. 557, and Bowyer v. Knapp, 15 W. Va. 290.

Judgments. In action on default judgment in another State against non-resident defendant, held error to refuse proof, in contradiction of record, that defendant had never been personally served with process, pp. 61-62.

Approved and followed as in harmony with constitutional obligation upon one State to give credit to judgments of another, in Vilas V. Plattsburgh, etc., R. R., 123 N. Y. 455, 20 Am. St. Rep. 777, 25 N. E. 945, 9 L. R. A. 849, and n., Holmes v. Oregon, etc., Ry. Co., 7 Sawy. 401, 9 Fed. 245, Hill v. Mendenhall, 21 Wall. 454, 22 L. 616, Downs v. Allen, 23 Blatchf. 60, 22 Fed. 808, Adams v. Terrell, 4 Woods, 341, 4 Fed. 800, Citizens' Bank v. Brooks, 23 Blatchf. 138, 23 Fed. 22, Litowich v. Litowich, 19 Kan. 455, 27 Am. Rep. 148, Martin v. Gray, 19 Kan. 461, 463, 27 Am. Rep. 151, 152, Fisher v. March, 26 Gratt. 778, Gregory v. Gregory, 76 Me. 539, Sewall v. Sewall, 122 Mass. 161, 23 Am. Rep. 304, Sears v. Dacey, 122 Mass. 389, Gilman v. Gilman, 126 Mass. 28, 30 Am. Rep. 647, Reed v. Reed, 52 Mich, 121, 50 Am. Rep. 250, 17 N. W. 722, Van Fossen v. State, 37 Ohio St. 320, 41 Am. Rep. 508, Guthrie v. Lowry, 84 Pa. St. 537, Price v. Schæffer, 161 Pa. St. 534, 535, 29 Atl. 279, 25 L. R. A. 700, Crumlish v. Central Imp. Co., 38 W. Va. 398, 45 Am. St. Rep. 878, 18 S. E. 459, 23 L. R. A. 131, and n., Mitchell, etc., Co. v. Ferris & Co., 5 Houst. 41, and Hall v. Lanning, 91 U. S. 169, 23 L. 274. Cited and relied upon also in Hart v. Samson, 110 U. S. 156, 28 L. 103, 3 S. Ct. 589, where United States court, in State where judgment rendered, allowed non-resident to show court had not jurisdiction; Hauswirth v. Sullivan, 6 Mont. 207, 212, 9 Pac. 800, 804, no laches of defendant can give life to judgment dead at its birth; Martin v. Gray, 19 Kan. 469, 27 Am. Rep. 158, judgment attacked in court of State where rendered; Wood v. Wood, 78 Ky. 627, foreign judgment void, on showing service procured by fraudulently inducing non-resident into State; Kilbourn v. Thomp son, 103 U. S. 198, 26 L. 389, jurisdiction of house of representatives to issue warrant of imprisonment for contempt denied; Thomas v. Morrisett, 76 Ga. 397, when decedent's domicile not within jurisdiction of court, probate judgment may be attacked; Hall v. Lanning, 91 U. S. 165, 23 L. 273, non-resident partner not bound by judgment after dissolution of firm on unauthorized appearance; Isett v. Stuart, 80 Ill. 410, 22 Am. Rep. 198, adjudication of firm bankruptcy not binding on non-resident partner served outside jurisdiction; Bowler v. Huston, 30 Gratt. 276, 32 Am. Rep. 678, and Graham v. Spencer, 14 Fed. 605, joint judgment against two, nullity as to one not served within jurisdiction; Goldey v.

ANN

Morning News, 156 U. S. 521, 39 L. 518, 15 S. Ct. 560, service on president temporarily within jurisdiction not recognized outside thereof, as constructive service on foreign corporation; Rose v. Northwest., etc., Ins. Co., 67 Fed. 440, service shown to have been accepted by unauthorized agent; in First Nat. Bank v. Cunningham, 48 Fed. 514, Hatch v. Ferguson, 57 Fed. 971, and Vilas v. Plattsburgh, etc., R. R. Co., 123 N. Y. 455, 20 Am. St. Rep. 777, 25 N. E. 945, 9 L. R. A. 849, and n., held, may prove appearance entered by unauthorized attorney. Approved, arguendo, in dissenting opinion, Elsasser v. Haines, 52 N. J. L. 25, 18 Atl. 1101; approved in Faber v. Hovey, 117 Mass. 108, 19 Am. Rep. 399, Sipes v. Whitney, 30 Ohio St. 74, Renaud v. Abbott, 116 U. S. 287, 29 L. 632, 6 S. Ct. 1198, Marr v. Wetzel, 3 Colo. 5, Runkle v. Citizens' Ins. Co., 6 Fed. 148, and Griggs v. Becker, 87 Wis. 317, 58 N. W. 398. Cited in valuable note, 2 Am. Dec. 44, as leading authority on effect of judgment from other States. Cited in note, 75 Am. Dec. 149, on point of appearance by unauthorized attorney.

Distinguished in Moch v. Virginia, etc., Ins. Co., 4 Hughes, 119, 10 Fed. 706, where question of jurisdiction submitted to court, parties concluded by determination in all courts except appellate; Reinach v. Atlantic, etc., Ry. Co., 58 Fed. 43, holding "quasi-jurisdictional" facts binding in collateral proceedings; Kansas. etc., Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 76 Fed. 438, 47 U. S. App. 1, cannot be shown that subject-matter in record not that which was adjudicated; Sammis v. Wightman, 31 Fla. 25, 12 So. 530, collateral attack not allowed on merits of controversy determined; in Hill v. Mendenhall, 21 Wall. 455, 22 L. 616, and Hunt v. Woodward, 12 Fed. Cas. 950, held matters of record must be contradicted by formal allegations of pleadings and disproved by preponderance of evidence; Foshier v. Narver, 24 Or. 443, 41 Am. St. Rep. 876, 34 Pac. 22, service of process on party by wrong name sufficient to give jurisdiction; Michels v. Stork, 52 Mich. 264, 17 N. W. 835, officer's return of service of process conclusive in collateral proceeding upon parties to original suit.

19 Wall. 62-65, 22 L. 97, RAILROAD CO. v. CHURCH.

Courts. Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over District of Columbia Supreme Court, stated, p. 63.

Followed in Ormsby v. Webb, 134 U. S. 61, 33 L. 811, 10 S. Ct.

483.

19 Wall. 65-70, 22 L. 47, COOPER v. OMOHUNDRO.

Appeal and error.- Ruling of Circuit Court on motion for new trial cannot be reviewed upon writ of error or otherwise, p. 69.

Appeal and error.- Refusal of motion in arrest made after entry of judgment, in case where finding of Circuit Court is general, cannot be reviewed as a ruling made in progress of trial, under act of 1865, respecting trials of fact by Circuit Court, p. 69.

Appeal and error.- Where jury is waived, and finding of Circuit Court is general, nothing is open to review under writ of error except rulings of court in progress of trial, in which neither the general finding, nor the conclusions of the court embodied therein. is included, p. 69.

Followed in Insurance Co. v. Sea, 21 Wall. 161, 22 L. 512, bill of exceptions must present, distinctly and specifically, rulings objected to; Jessup v. United States, 106 U. S. 150, 27 L. 86, 1 S. Ct. 77, facts found not open to review, only errors of law arising on trial or apparent on face of pleadings; Martinton v. Fairbanks, 112 U. S. 673, 28 L. 863, 5 S. Ct. 322, Boardman v. Toffey, 117 U. S. 272, 29 L. 898, 6 S. Ct. 734, Lehnen v. Dickson, 148 U. S. 73, 37 L. 374, 13 S. Ct. 482, and Burden v. Burnham, 59 Fed. 754, 19 U. S. App. 448, general finding by court has same effect as verdict of jury; Walker v. Miller, 59 Fed. 870, 19 U. S. App. 403, review limited to question whether judgment supported by pleadings and finding; Mercantile Trust Co. v. Wood, 60 Fed. 348, 19 U. S. App. 567, and Adkins v. Sloane, 61 Fed. 792, 19 U. S. App. 661, sufficiency of evidence to support general finding not open to review; National Bank, etc. v. First National Bank, 61 Fed. 810, 27 U. S. App. 88. Tabor v. Commercial, etc., Bank, 62 Fed. 388. 27 U. S. App. 111. Kentucky, etc., Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, 63 Fed. 97, 22 U. S. App. 386. and Citizens' Bank v. Farwell, 63 Fed. 120, 27 U. S. App. 268. question whether finding supported by evidence, only raised by request that upon undisputed facts finding be otherwise; Searcy Co. v. Thompson, 66 Fed. 93, 94, 95, 27 U. S. App. 715, and dissenting opinion, 99, 100, 27 U. S. App. 715; Key West v. Baer, 66 Fed. 443, 30 U. S. App. 140, Rhodes v. U. S. Nat. Bank, 66 Fed. 515, 24 U. S. App. 607, 34 L. R. A. 744, O'Hara v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 76 Fed. 720, 40 U. S. App. 471, and Insurance Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 138, 24 L. 401, general finding concludes parties unless rulings of court during trial properly excepted to; Packer v. Whittier, 91 Fed. 513, 63 U. S. App. 40, Distilling, etc., Co. v. Gottschalk Co., 66 Fed. 610, 24 U. S. App. 638. Approved, arguendo, in Groves v. Sentell, 69 Fed. 225, 30 U. S. App. 382.

19 Wall. 70-72, 22 L. 63, CREWS v. BREWER.

Appeal and error.- Where jury has been waived, unless an authorized statement of facts as found by Circuit Court, not a mere report of evidence taken, appears upon the record, questions of law arising out of these facts cannot be re-examined on writ of error, p. 72.

Followed in Miller v. Houston, etc., Ry. Co., 55 Fed. 370, 13 U. S. App. 57, bill of exceptions, professing to detail all evidence received, is not special finding of facts; Kentucky, etc., Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, 63 Fed. 97, 22 U. S. App. 386, recital in judgment entry that court delivered opinion finding all issues in plaintiff's favor

ANN

does not make opinion part of record or special finding of facts; Distilling, etc., Co. v. Gottschalk Co., 66 Fed. 610, 24 U. S. App. 638, refusal to adopt certain conclusions of law not properly a ruling in progress of trial; Packer v. Whittier, 91 Fed. 513, 63 U. S. App. 40, Insurance Co. v. Sea, 21 Wall. 161, 22 L. 512, and Insurance Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 138, 24 L. 401.

19 Wall. 73-75, 22 L. 64, THE LUCILLE.

Admiralty.- Appeal in admiralty vacates decree from which taken, and contemplates a new trial, with other testimony and pleadings if desired, in which judgment below is regarded as though never rendered, and an entirely new decree is made and enforced by appellate court, p. 74.

Affirmed and applied in The Charles Morgan, 115 U. S. 75, 29 L. 318, 5 S. Ct. 1175, allowing amendments to libel after appeal: The Thomas Fletcher, 24 Fed. 482, admiralty cases go up on appeal, not on error; Irvine v. The Hesper, 122 U. S. 267, 30 L. 1178, 7 S. Ct. 1182, The Louisville v. Halliday, 154 U. S. 657, 25 L. 771, 14 S. Ct. 1191, The Blenheim, 18 Fed. 48, and Nelson v. White, 83 Fed. 217, 48 U. S. App. 660, cannot on appeal be tried on merits without opportunity to consider testimony; The Philadelphian, 60 Fed. 425. 426, 21 U. S. App. 90, and The Lillie, 42 Fed. 180.

Distinguished in The Beecher Dene, 55 Fed. 527, 13 U. S. App. 211, from practice in Circuit Court of Appeals and Supreme Court; Braithwaite v. Jordan, 5 N. Dak. 252, 256, 65 N. W. 720, 722, appeal without undertaking did not prevent enforcement of decree in admiralty, for which purpose considered as subsisting. Limited in Levy v. The Thomas Melville, 37 Fed. 272, when appellate court doubtful of truth of testimony may be influenced by effect of presence of witness on trial court.

Appeal and error.- Circuit Court decree merely affirming District Court, but without computing or stating the amount, is de fective and improper, and hence not a final appealable decree, pp. 74, 75.

Extended in Morehead v. International R. R. Co., 46 Tex. 182, setting aside verdict makes new trial necessary, as no final judgment from which to appeal.

Distinguished in Braithwaite v. Jordan, 5 N. Dak. 252, 256, 65 affirmed," yet final N. W. 720, 722, where, though decree below" decree complete without reference to records of other court.

19 Wall. 75-80, 22 L. 98, THE FALCON.

Collision.-Duty of steamer approaching schooner to see her as soon as can be seen, to watch progress and direction, take account of all circumstances of situation, and guard against peril to either vessel by keeping out of the way, p. 77.

Followed in The Robert Holland, 59 Fed. 201, steamer with unwieldly tow held to rule of care required of single steamer; The Chatham, 52 Fed. 399, 8 U. S. App. 104, steamer must give sailing vessel "wide birth; " The J. W. Everman, 2 Hughes, 19, F. C. 7,591, and The Iron Chief, 63 Fed. 291, 22 U. S. App. 473.

Collision. If, in the danger of moment of collision, improper order be given or act done, the law regards it error, not fault, and holds vessel originally causing peril liable as if it had not occurred, p. 78.

Followed in The Golden Grove, 13 Fed. 688, The E. A. Packer, 49 Fed. 99, The E. Luckenbach, 93 Fed. 843, The Chatham, 52 Fed. 399, 8 U. S. App. 104, error committed when seamen of ordinary skill and courage believe collision inevitable, not fault; Farr v. Steamship Farnley, 1 Fed. 637.

Collision. Where vessel is sunk at sea and pleadings admit a total loss, rule of damages is full value of vessel; this is not mitigated by proof that vessel had been raised and repaired. but on decree rendered, title of libellants passes to owners of offending vessel, pp. 79-80.

Followed in The Leland, 19 Fed. 781, claim for loss of freight not allowed; The Havilah, 50 Fed. 334, 1 U. S. App. 138, allowing value of ship, cargo, freight, personal effects, with interest from probable termination of voyage. Approved, arguendo, in Pettie v. Boston Tow-Boat Co., 49 Fed. 467, 1 U. S. App. 57, holding duty to raise and repair if reasonable probability that loss may be mit igated; The Mary Eveline, 14 Blatchf. 499, F. C. 9,212, expense of raising vessel, less value when raised, is proper charge on damages for total loss.

Distinguished in The Thomas P. Way, 28 Fed. 526, as stating rule of damages, having no reference to vessels sunk in shallow water.

19 Wall. 81-83, 22 L. 100, MORGAN'S EXECUTOR v. GAY.

Courts. Under judiciary act, in action on inland bill in Circuit Court by assignee against maker or acceptor, diverse citizenship, both of parties to suit and of original payee and indorser, must affirmatively appear, otherwise cause will be sent back by appellate court for amendment of pleadings, pp. 82-83.

Followed in United States Nat. Bank v. M'Nair, 56 Fed. 327, Holmes v. Goldsmith, 147 U. S. 157, and Parker v. Ormsby, 141 U. S. 85, 35 L. 656, 11 S. Ct. 913, by failing to raise question of allegations as to citizenship in Circuit Court, right not waived in United States Supreme Court; extended in Hampton v. Truckee Canal Co., 9 Sawy. 383, 386, 19 Fed. 3, 4, in suit by assignee of mechanic's lien must appear court had jurisdiction in action by original claimant; Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U. S. 325, 32 L. 134, 8 S. Ct. 1156, defect in allegations

ANN