existing debt, doubting principal case; Balfour v. Wheeler, 15 Fed. 233, where confession note was given by collusion; S. C., 18 Fed. 897, affirming 15 Fed. 233, in Circuit Court.

This case is also cited as authority for the following propositions enunciated in the preceding case: Sawyer v. Turpin, 91 U. S. 121, 23 L. 237, substitution of equally valuable securities is not preference; Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. 433, 31 L. 193, 8 S. Ct. 194, question of fraudulent preference involves question of fact and cannot be referred to Supreme Court on division of opinion; In re Jackson Mfg. Co., 13 Fed. Cas. 261, exchange of values may be made though one party be insolvent; Harmanson v. Bain, 1 Hughes, 201, F. C. 6,072, as authority for holding bill in equity proper proceedIng to set aside fraudulent transfer.

21 Wall 387-389, 22 L. 622, BROWN v. BRACKETT.

Public lands.- Federal courts, in acting upon Mexican grants, in California, under act of 1851, were concerned only with validity of such grants as they came from Mexican government, and not with derivative titles from grantees, p. 388.

Cited in McMicken v. United States, 97 U. S. 208, 24 L. 948, holding court will not make decree in favor of grantee's legal representatives "for benefit of whom it may concern."

Public lands.- Confirmation of Mexican grant, in California, obtained under act of 1851, is limited by extent of claim made, p. 388.

Cited in Bouldin v. Phelps, 12 Sawy. 315, 30 Fed. 562, holding claimant, under grant of imperfect title, cannot maintain ejectment against claimant under same grant, who has had confirmation thereof.

21 Wall. 389-398, 22 L. 619, ATLEE v. PACKET CO.

Wharves. States may, either directly or by delegated powers in municipalities, regulate location, erection and use of wharves, p. 393.

Followed in Prosser v. Northern Pac. R. R., 152 U. S. 64, 38 L. 356, 14 S. Ct. 530, upholding regulation of harbor lines by harbor commissioners.

Wharves and piers, extending into navigable water, are allowable as essential aids to navigation, p. 393.

Cited in Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 41, 38 L. 346, 14 S. Ct. 563, holding title and rights of riparian proprietors in soil below high-water mark of navigable waters, governable by local laws, subject to United States' rights; Rutz v. St. Louis, 2 McCrary, 346, 7 Fed. 440, holding State authority no excuse for obstructing nav. igable river; Rutz v. St. Louis, 3 McCrary, 265, 10 Fed. 341, holding

that city was not liable to undamaged riparian owners, for erection of dyke, extending into channel; State v. Illinois Cent. R. R., 33 Fed. 755, holding city may delegate charter right to erect breakwater; Scranton v. Wheeler, 57 Fed. 813, 16 U. S. App. 152, holding government may erect pier on submerged land without compensating riparian owner; People v. Illinois Central R. R., 91 Fed. 958, holding riparian owner has right to wharf out to navigable channel; County Commrs. v. County Commrs., 50 Md. 262, holding, in absence of congressional restriction, State may authorize bridges over navigable streams; Morrill v. St. Anthony Falls Co., 26 Minn. 226, 37 Am. Rep. 401, 2 N. W. 845, holding riparian owner may use water passing his land, navigation not being impeded thereby; Concord Co. v. Robertson, 66 N. H. 18, 25 Atl. 726, 18 L. R. A. 689, holding wharf should extend to navigable depth in dry season; Diedrich v. Northwestern Ry., 42 Wis. 265, 267, 24 Am. Rep. 408, 410, holding riparian owner may extend wharf to line of navigability; dissenting opinion in Eisenbach v. Hatfield, 2 Wash. 282, 26 Pac. 553, 12 L. R. A. 651, and n., majority denying right to extend wharf below high-water mark. Cited generally in Chisolm v. Caines, 67 Fed. 292. See 19 Am. St. Rep. 232, extended note.

Navigable waters.- Log boom, extending into channel of navigable river, erected by riparian owner, without authority of law, is an unlawful structure, and owner is liable for damage to barge colliding therewith, p. 395.

Cited and applied in Ladd v. Foster, 12 Sawy. 558, 31 Fed. 834, and The Imperial, 13 Sawy. 644, 38 Fed. 618, 3 L. R. A. 237, and n., both holding cable stretched near surface and into channel, unlawful obstruction; St. Louis v. The Knapp Co., 2 McCrary, 519, 6 Fed. 224. holding private individual may not place permanent obstruction in channel; The Assante v. Charleston Bridge Co., 41 Fed. 365, holding unlawful structure must be responsible for damages caused to vessels; Grand Trunk Ry. v. Backus, 46 Fed. 214, enjoining extension of dock into channel where unauthorized by war department; Sullivan v. Spotswood, 82 Ala. 169, 2 So. 719, holding lease of booming facilities does not imply right to occupy bed of stream.

Cited as to jurisdiction in Panama R. R. v. Napier Shipping Co., 166 U. S. 285, 41 L. 1005, 17 S. Ct. 574, holding admiralty jurisdiction extends over torts committed in foreign ports; The Schooner Maud Webster, 8 Ben. 552, F. C. 9,302, denying admiralty jurisdiction where consummation of injury is on land; The Arkansas, 5 McCrary, 367, 368, 17 Fed. 386, 387, holding action for damage to vessel by fixed structure, properly brought in admiralty; Simpson v. The Ceres, 22 Fed. Cas. 173, holding every tort on navigable waters, of admiralty cognizance; Leonard v. Decker, 22 Fed. 743, and Etheridge v. City of Philadelphia, 26 Fed. 43, both holding tort maritime, wherever injury is received by vessel afloat. al

22 W

though caused by fixed structure; The F. and P. M. No. 2, 33 Fed. 514, upholding Federal jurisdiction of action in rem against vessel for damaging log raft; Boston v. Crowley, 38 Fed. 204, Assante v. Charleston Bridge Co., 40 Fed. 767, Hill v. Board of Freeholders, 45 Fed. 261, and Oregon City, etc., Co. v. Columbia Bridge Co., 53 Fed. 551, all holding admiralty jurisdiction of injury to vessel by bridge; The Milwaukee v. The Curtis, 37 Fed. 706, 3 L. R. A. 712, denying jurisdiction where vessel injured bridge; Greenwood v. Westport, 63 Conn. 606, 60 Fed. 578, sustaining action against town for injury to vessel from its drawbridge; The Strabo, 90 Fed. 111, exercising admiralty jurisdiction where claimant fell from unsecured ladder on ship, to dock. Cited, without application, in Renwick v. D. & N. W. R. Co., 49 Iowa, 670.

Distinguished in Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 409, 25 L. 208, and Stevens Point Co. v. Reilly, 46 Wis. 242, 244, 49 N. W. 978, 979, both holding riparian owner may erect boom if navigation be not impaired thereby; J. S. Keator Co. v. St. Croix Boom Co., 72 Wis. 93, 7 Am. St. Rep. 857, 38 N. W. 541, holding boom may be authorized by State laws.

Collision. At common law, where both vessels are at fault, neither can recover damages for collision, p. 395.

Cited in Belden v. Chase, 150 U. S. 691, 37 L. 1224, 14 S. Ct. 269, in action at law for damages from collision.

Collision. In admiralty, where both parties to collision have been in fault, entire damages resulting therefrom must be equally divided between them, p. 395.

Cited and followed in The Max Morris, 137 U. S. 9, 34 L. 587, 11 S. Ct. 31, affirming S. C., 24 Blatchf. 147, 28 Fed. 885, holding contributory negligence not a bar to partial recovery for injuries by marine tort; McCord v. The Tiber, 6 Biss. 411, F. C. 8,715, holding common-law doctrine of contributory negligence not applicable in admiralty; Ladd v. Foster, 12 Sawy. 553, 31 Fed. 831, holding contributory negligence cause for dividing damages, not bar to relief; Olsen v. Flavel, 13 Sawy. 235, 34 Fed. 479, holding damages apportionable in case of contributory negligence; The Imperial, 13 Sawy. 645, 38 Fed. 618, 3 L. R. A. 237, and n., holding vessel liable for half damages for negligently colliding with unlawful obstruction; The City of Carlisle, 14 Sawy. 187, 39 Fed. 813, 5 L. R. A. 59, holding damages apportionable in case of contributory negligence; The Modoc, 26 Fed. 720, where negligence of pilot contributed to collision with unlawful obstruction; Sullivan v. Lake Superior Elevator Co., 56 Fed. 736, dividing damages where injured vessel was negligent. See note in 45 Am. Dec. 53, on division of damages, and 1 Am. St. Rep. 814, note, on shipowner's duty to seamen.

Cited, but application denied, in Grand Trunk Ry. v. Griffin, 21 Fed. 735, there being no contributory negligence.

Pilots.- Personal and minute knowledge of topography of river Is required of river pilots, p. 397.

Cited and applied in The Steamship Oregon, 14 Sawy. 449, 45 Fed. 67, holding mistake in recognizing lights, inexcusable negHgence; The Tom Lysle, 48 Fed. 692, 694, holding pilot liable for damage caused by departure from channel.

21 Wall. 398-429, 22 L. 520, MICHAELS v. POST.

Appeal and error.- Defects in proceedings appealed from should be specifically pointed out, and when consisting of matters of fact, evidence supporting assignment should be distinctly referred to, p. 425.

Judgments.- Decree of District Court, in bankruptcy proceeding, is conclusive of facts decreed, unless questioned in court where entered, or by direct proceeding in another court of competent jurisdiction, p. 425.

Cited and principle applied in Sloan v. Lewis, 22 Wall. 157, 22 L. 833, holding finding of debt due, conclusive in collateral action; Chapman v. Brewer, 114 U. S. 169, 29 L. 87, 5 S. Ct. 804, holding bankruptcy decree unimpeachable collaterally; Kent v. Lake Superior Canal Co., 144 U. S. 88, 36 L. 357, 12 S. Ct. 654, holding remedy for error in foreclosure decree must be sought in court rendering same; Evers v. Watson, 156 U. S. 532, 39 L. 522, 15 S. Ct. 432, holding findings of District Court, on decree of sale, not reviewable collaterally; In re Lennon, 166 U. S. 553, 41 L. 1112, 17 S. Ct. 660, holding jurisdictional averments of record cannot be attacked on habeas corpus; Wald v. Wehl, 18 Blatchf. 501, 6 Fed. 169, holding Bankruptcy Court's findings conclusive in collateral proceedings; Re Ives, 5 Dill. 148, F. C. 7,115, holding adjudication of bankruptcy, conclusive as to jurisdiction of Bankruptcy Court where record shows jurisdiction on face thereof; Reinach v. Atlantic Co., 58 Fed. 43, holding determination of quasi-jurisdictional facts, binding collaterally; Arnold v. Kahn, 67 Cal. 473, 8 Pac. 36, holding adjudication of insolvency, under State law, decree in rem regarding debtor's status; Riego v. Foster, 125 Cal. 181, 57 Pac. 897, holding insolvency proceedings, regular on face, cannot be collaterally attacked on ground that petitioner's signers were not creditors; Sawyer v. Rector, 5 Dak. 127, 37 N. W. 747, holding bankruptcy discharge cannot be attacked collaterally by one willfully omitted from list of creditors; Mount v. Manhattan Co., 41 N. J. Eq. 214, 3 Atl. 728, holding adjudication of bankruptcy conclusive collaterally; Williams v. Scott, 122 N. C. 549, 29 S. E. 878, holding bankruptcy decree binding on State courts; Noble v. Union River Logging R. R., 147 U. S. 174, 37 L. 126, 13 S. Ct. 273, holding decision of secretary of interior, as to railroad right of way, conclusive on his successor; Re McKibben, 16 Fed. Cas. 212, arguendo.

Bankruptcy.— District Court has jurisdiction of all acts, matters and things to be done under and in virtue of bankruptcy, until final distribution and settlement of estate, nd close of proceed ings, p. 425.

Judgments.- Bankruptcy decrees of District Courts, bein, rendered in pursuance of power conferred by Congress, are entitled, in Supreme Court, to same force and effect as decrees of any domestic tribunal, so long as unreversed, p. 426.

Judgments, procured through fraud of either party, may be collaterally impeached by third parties defrauded thereby, p. 427.

Cited and relied upon in M'Dermott v. Copeland, 9 Fed. 537, holding decree of State court cannot be revised in collateral proceeding in Federal court; Hancock Inspirator Co. v. Jenks, 21 Fed. 914, holding recital in patent, of oath made, conclusive in suit against infringer; Pullman's Car Co. v. Washburn, 66 Fed. 797, holding judgment erroneous as between parties, cannot be attacked col laterally; Kansas City R. R. v. Morgan, 76 Fed. 435, 47 U. S. App. 1, holding infant cannot collaterally attack judgment obtained for him by next friend; Smith v. Hall, 69 Conn. 665, 38 Atl. 392, holding decree of divorce cannot be collaterally attacked by defendant in breach of promise suit. See 11 Am. Dec. 222, 64 Am. Dec. 347, 72 Am. Dec. 610, 79 Am. Dec. 752, and 83 Am. Dec. 534, notes, on collateral attack.

Bankruptcy. Judgment may be impeached for purpose of showing its procurement for purpose of avoiding operation of bankrupt act, p. 427.

Cited in Gay v. Brierfield Coal Co., 94 Ala. 327, 11 So. 362, 16 L. R. A. 574, upholding State jurisdiction over suit by defrauded creditors against defendant in Federal action.

Bankruptcy. In order to render payment illegal, under act, it must have been made within four months before filing of petition, by one insolvent, or in contemplation of insolvency, with view to give preference, and to person having reasonable cause to believe maker insolvent and that payment was in fraud of act, p. 429.

Bankruptcy.- Creditor, induced by fraudulent representations of another creditor, intending to secure preference, to release his debt, may disregard release and petition that debtor be declared bankrupt, p. 429.

Miscellaneous.— Harmanson v. Bain, 1 Hughes, 201, F. C. 6,072.

21 Wall. 430-440, 22 L. 673, DILLON v. BARNARD.

Equity. Demurrer to bill in equity does not admit accuracy of alleged construction of instrument set forth therein, p. 437.

The following citing cases cite the principal case as authority for holding following allegations not admitted by demurrer: Gould