C. OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

1. The maker of a promissory note signed it entirely for the benefit of the payee, who was really the party for whose use it was made. The maker and the payee were citizens of the same State. A citizen of another State discounted the note, and paid full consideration for it to the payee, who endorsed it to him. The note not being paid at maturity, the endorsee, who had not parted with it, brought suit upon it against the maker in the Circuit Court of the United States. Held, that the court had jurisdiction, notwithstanding the provision in the act of August 13, 1888, 25 Stat. 433, 434, c. 866, that such court shall not have cognizance of a suit to recover the contents of a promissory note in favor of an assignee or subsequent holder, unless such suit might have been prosecuted in such court if no assignment had been made. Holmes v. Goldsmith, 150.

2. The general rule is that the judicial power will not interpose, by mandamus or injunction, to limit or direct the action of departmental officers in respect of matters pending, within their jurisdiction and control. New Orleans v. Paine, 261.

3. A Circuit Court of the United States has no jurisdiction over a bill in equity to enjoin the collection of taxes from a railroad company, when distinct assessments, in separate counties, no one of which amounts to $2000, and for which, in case of payment under protest, separate suits must be brought to recover back the amounts paid, are joined in the bill and make an aggregate of over $2000. Walter v. Northeastern Railroad Co., 370.

4. When it appears that some title, right, privilege or immunity, on which the recovery depends, will be defeated by one construction of the Constitution or a law of the United States, or sustained by the opposite construction, the case is one arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Cooke v. Avery, 375.

5. When a party, on the first trial of a cause in a Circuit Court sets up such a right as the ground of Federal jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction is sustained, he cannot be permitted, on the second trial to oust the jurisdiction by contending that no such right is in controversy. Ib. 6. Where a plaintiff's title rests upon the validity of a lien claimed to have been acquired under a judgment of a Circuit Court of the United States, the disposition of the issue depends upon the laws of the United States and the rules of its courts, and a Federal court has jurisdiction. Ib.

See CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, 3;

PUBLIC LAND, 4;

UNITED STATES, 1, 6.

D. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

Although the United States did not appeal, this court considered the question of the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, and held, that as the

right of action of the plaintiffs accrued in 1886, and the Court of
Claims from that time had full jurisdiction over it, under its general
jurisdiction, and as the general jurisdictional act of that court was
not repealed by the act of 1888, to the extent of this case, the plain-
tiffs could waive the benefit of the additional method of adjustment
provided by the act of 1888, and the general jurisdiction of that court
and such additional method could both of them well stand together.
Smithmeyer v. United States, 342.

See CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

LANDLORD AND TENANT.

1. An agreement between a railroad company and an individual that the
latter shall occupy a section-house of the company, and shall board
there the section-hands and other employés of the company at an
agreed rate, the company to aid in collecting the payment out of the
wages of the employés, does not create the relation of master and
servant between the company and the individual, but does create a
tenancy terminable at the will of the company. Doyle v. Union
Pacific Railway Co., 413.

2. In the absence of fraud, misrepresentation or deceit, a landlord is not
responsible for injuries happening to his tenant by reason of a snow
slide or avalanche. Ib.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.

See CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED States.

LICENSE TAX.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 4.

LIEN.

1. The courts of the United States enforce grantor's and vendor's liens, if
in harmony with the jurisprudence of the State in which the action is
brought. Fisher v. Shropshire, 133.

2. The doctrine of a vendor's lien, arising by implication, seems to have
been generally recognized in the State of Iowa. Ib.

3. If a suit to enforce a vendor's lien upon land in Iowa is pending at the
time when the vendee conveys the land to a third party, no presump-
tion can arise that that lien has been waived, as against the grantee
of the vendee, whatever may be the general rule in that State as to
the presumption of the waiver of a vendor's lien, in case of a convey-
ance of the tract by the vendee. Ib.

4. The filing of the petition in this case to assert and enforce a vendor's
lien was notice of its assertion and prevented third parties from

acquiring an interest in the subject-matter against and superior to the lien. Ib.

5. It does not appear to be necessary in Iowa to exhaust the remedy at law before proceeding to enforce a vendor's lien. Ib.

6. Under the circumstances of this case, as detailed in the opinion; held, (1) That a vendor's lien existed on the property for the complainants' benefit which could be enforced by them for the balance due them on the purchase money; (2) That George Lyle was not a necessary ́ party to the proceedings to enforce it; (3) That there was an error in the master's computation, which made it necessary to remand the

case.

Ib.

LIMITATION, STATUTES OF.

1. The construction given by the Supreme Court of a State to a statute of limitations of the State will be followed by this court, even in a case decided the other way in the Circuit Court before the decision of the state court. Bauserman v. Blunt, 647.

2. The statute of limitations of Kansas, as construed by the Supreme Court of the State, does not run while the debtor is personally absent from the State, although he retains a usual place of residence therein, where a summons upon him might be served. Ib.

3. The statute of limitations of Kansas, as construed by the Supreme Court of the State, stops running at the death of the debtor, but for such a reasonable time only as will enable the creditor to have an administrator appointed. Ib.

See UNITED STATES, 4.

LIMITED LIABILITY.

See ADMIRALTY, 1.

LOCAL LAW.

1. During the ninety days allowed by the statutes of Texas concerning the purchase of school lands to a purchaser to make his first payment, (Laws of 1879, special session, p. 23, Laws of 1881, p. 119,) it is not competent for the surveyor to permit a person who had filed an application for a designated tract to treat the application as withdrawn and abandoned, and to make another application for the same tract in the name of a different person. Monroe Cattle Co. v. Becker, 47.

2. During that period of ninety days the land is in the position of reserved lands under railroad grant acts, to which it is well settled that the grant does not attach if the land is in any way segregated from the public lands. Ib.

3. Under the laws of Texas regulating the sale of the school lands, a purchaser who makes the first payment called for, who executes the obligations for subsequent payments as called for, and complies with those obligations as they mature, is protected against forfeiture. 16.

4. The act of the legislature of Texas of April 14, 1883, concerning purchases of school lands, had no effect upon the vested rights of the plaintiff in this case. Ib.

5. An index to an abstract of judgments in Texas, made under its laws for acquiring judgment liens, is sufficient, which gives the defendant's name or names correctly, and the names of the plaintiffs by a partnership title. Cooke v. Avery, 375.

6. In Texas, in trespass to try title, the defendant cannot question the validity of his grantor's title at the time of the conveyance to him when the plaintiff claims under the same grantor, unless he claims under a paramount title. Ib.

7. If the defendant in such an action pleads his title specially, he waives the general issue, and is confined to the defence specially pleaded. Ib. 8. The defendant in such an action, not having been in possession of the land in dispute for twelve months next before the commencement of the action under written evidence of title, offered to show that immediately after concluding his bargain for the property he entered into possession, and commenced making improvements, and erected improvements of great value on the property before he knew of the plaintiff's lien. This was done in order to enable him to get the benefit of the provisions in the Texas statutes relating to improvements. Held, that the offer was too vague. Ib.

9. A married woman was codefendant in an action of trespass to try title in Texas. Her interest was a community interest in the property by virtue of a conveyance to her husband. Held, that a personal judgment in damages for use and occupation, and for costs, could not be rendered against her. Ib.

1. Certain bonds issued by the government of Austra, held to represent a "lottery or similar scheme," within the meaning of § 3894 of the Revised Statutes, as enacted by the act of September 19, 1890, c. 908,

26 Stat. 465; and a given circular held to be a "circular concerning any lottery, so-called gift, concert or other similar enterprise offering prizes dependent upon lot or chance," within the meaning of said § 3894; and the said circular held to constitute a "list of the drawings at any lottery or similar scheme," within the meaning of said § 3894. Horner v. United States, 449.

2. What is a lottery, considered. Ib.

3. Cases in the United States and England, considered. Ib.

4. Although, by the bonds in question, Austria attempted to obtain a loan of money, she also undertook to assist her credit by an appeal to the cupidity of those who had money, and offered to each holder of a bond a chance of obtaining a prize dependent upon lot or chance, the element of certainty going hand in hand with the element of lot or chance, but the former not destroying the existence or effect of the latter. Ib.

MANDAMUS.

Under § 7 of the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, 26 Stat. 826, 828, which provides for an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals from an interlocutory order or decree granting or continuing an injunction on a hearing in equity, the granting of a stay of the operation of the injunction. during the pendency of the appeal, by the court which granted or continued it, is not a matter of right, but is a matter of discretion; and such discretion of that court cannot be controlled by a writ of mandamus from this court. In re Haberman Manufacturing Co., 525. See ADMIRALTY, 1;

JURISDICTION, A, 5; C, 2.

MARRIED WOMAN.

1. In Ohio the separate property of a married woman is not charged, either in law or in equity, by her contracts executed previous to its existence. Ankeney v. Hannon, 118.

2. The cases in Ohio, in New York, and in England on this subject, examined. Ib.

3. The liability of a husband to his wife for her paraphernal property, secured by legal mortgage of his estate, under the law of Louisiana, is extinguished by his discharge in bankruptcy; her mortgage, therefore, cannot attach to land acquired by him after the discharge; and a subsequent mortgagee from the husband may set up the discharge in bankruptcy against the wife. Fleitas v. Richardson, (No. 2,) 550. See LOCAL Law, 9.

MARSHAL.

See CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, 2;

COSTS, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8.