2.

2. A clerk of a corporation fraudulently
filled out a certificate for shares of its
stock, in the name of a fictitious per-
son, procured the signatures of the of-
ficers to the certificate, and nego-
tiated it, signing the name of the fic-
titious person to the assignment and
power of attorney on the back. The
vendee of the shares bought them in
good faith, received the certificate,
presented it to the agents of the cor-
poration, at its office, and they trans-
ferred the shares to the vendee, and
delivered to him a new certificate
for the shares. On a bill filed by the
corporation against him, to restrain
the transfer of the certificate, and
compel its surrender: Held, that the 3.
plaintiff was estopped from denying
the validity of the certificate.
hattan Beach Co. v. Harned,

Man-

494

3. The owners of a majority of the stock
of a corporation, under the form of dis-
solving it, and disposing of its prop-
erty, and distributing the proceeds,
became the purchasers of such prop-
erty at an unfair price, through a
new corporation, in which they were
shareholders, to the exclusion of the
minority shareholders in the old cor-
poration. In a suit in equity by the
latter against the new corporation:
Held, that they had an equitable lien,
to the extent of the moneys of which
they had been deprived by the sale,
on the property of the old corporation
in the hands of the new corporation.
Ervin v. Oregon Railway and Navi-
gation Co.,

See COSTS, 11.

INTEREST, 1.

JURISDICTION, 1, 2.
MASTER AND SERVANT, 2.
NEGLIGENCE, 1, 2.

TRUSTEE.

517

4.

COSTS.

To constitute "a final hearing in
equity or admiralty," within the
meaning of § 824 of the Revised Stat-
utes, allowing a docket fee of $20 to
solicitors and proctors, "on a final
hearing in equity or admiralty," there
must be a hearing of the cause on
the merits, that is, a submission of
it to the Court, in such shape as the
parties choose to give it, with a view
to a determination whether the plain-
tiff or libellant has made out the
case stated by him in his bill or libel,
as the ground for the permanent re-
lief which his pleading seeks, on such
proofs as the parties place before the
Court, be the case one of pro confesso,
or bill or libel and answer, or plead-
ings alone, or pleadings and proofs.
Wooster v. Handy,

112

Where, after a hearing on pleadings
and proofs, in a suit in equity, a de-
cree for the plaintiff is directed, and
then the case is reheard, and the bill
dismissed, two docket fees of $20
each are taxable against the plain-
tiff.
id.

Where a deposition is taken in one
case, and is, by stipulation of the
parties to another case, admitted in
evidence in the latter, the solicitor's
fee of $2.50, given by § 824, "for
each deposition taken and admitted
as evidence in a cause," cannot be
taxed in the latter case, against the
losing party.
id.

Under the provision of § 983, that
"lawful fees for exemplifications and
copies of papers necessarily obtained
for use on trials, in cases where by
law costs are recoverable in favor of
the prevailing party, shall be taxed"
and be included in" the "judgment
or decree against the losing party,"
the papers, to be taxable, must not
only be for use "on trials," that is,
such trials and final hearings as are
elsewhere spoken of in the Act of
February 26th, 1853, (10 U. S. Stat.
at Large, 161,) from which the pro-
vision is taken, but they must have
been actually used, or obtained for
such use under a rule, order, or stip-
ulation; and all exemplifications and
copies not provided for in § 983 must

5. Expenses of a messenger in bringing
a model from the Patent Office to
use on a motion for a preliminary
injunction; travelling expenses of
the solicitor; cost of a box for an ex-
hibit; cost of moving exhibits; cost
of machine exhibits or models, not
from the Patent Office, and not pro-
cured under an order or rule of
Court cost of photo-lithographic
sketches, not from the Patent Office,
but introduced by witnesses in giving
evidence; are not taxable items. id.

6. Items for fees of witnesses, not paid
to them for attendance in a case,
when they were paid fees for attend-
ing in other cases, are not taxable in
the absence of explanation as to why
they were not paid.
id.

7. Where, in several cases, there is
but one record of proofs for all, and
each witness is sworn in each case,
and his deposition is written down
only once, and is entitled in all of
the suits, a deposition fee of $2.50 to
the solicitor, for each witness, in
each case in which his deposition is
entitled, is taxable, in the absence of
any agreement to the contrary, be-
cause the deposition was "taken and
admitted as evidence" in each case
in which it was entitled.

id.

Rule 67 in Equity, so as not to be
charged with the costs of them: Held,
that the objections were waived by
the laches.
id.

1. In view of the provisions of S$ 3,074
to 3,079 of the Revised Statutes, in
regard to the seizure by a collector,
and the appraisement and sale, of
property not over $500 in value, as
subject to forfeiture for a violation of
the customs laws, and the payment
of the proceeds into the Treasury,
the only remedy of a claimant of the
property, where the prescribed pro-
ceedings have been followed, is that
afforded by those provisions of the
statute, and an action of trover by
him against the seizing officer will
not lie, based on the ground that the
property was not subject to forfeiture.
McGuire v. Winslow,

See DUTIES.

D

DAMAGES.

See COLLISION, 2, 7, 8, 19.
PATENT, 11, 12.
RELEASE.

DEMURRAGE.

See CONTRACT, 8.

DENMARK.

425

1. Ordinary beans are, under the Act
of March 3d, 1888, (22 U. S. Sta'. at
Large, 488,) dutiable as provisions,
in Schedule G, (504,) at 10 per cent.
ad valorem. Windmuller v. Robert-
son,
233

4. In 1884, duty was levied on sugar
imported from the Dominican Re-
public, under schedule E of the tariff
Act of March 3d, 1883, (22 U. S. Stat.
at Large, 488, 502.) Under Article 9
of the treaty of February 8th, 1867,
between the United States and the
Dominican Republic, (15 U. S. Stat.
at Large, 478.) the importer claimed
that the sugar was free from duty, be-
cause, by a treaty made January 30th,
1875, between the United States and
the Hawaiian Islands, (19 U. S. Stat.
at Large, 625,) and the Act of August
15th, 1876, (Id., 200,) sugar imported
from the Hawaiian Islands was ex-
empted from duty: Held, that the
duty was properly levied. Nether-
clift v. Robertson,

546

5. A warehouseman issued negotiable
receipts for property deposited with
him. Afterwards, a person claiming
to own the property, sued him at law,
in trover; and the holder of the re-
ceipts sued him. He filed a bill in
equity against them and two other
persons who claimed an interest in
the property, praying that the defen-
dants be enjoined from suits and be
required to interplead. None of the
parties disputed the lien for storage,
or derived title from the plaintiff,
but either derived title from the bail-
ors of the plaintiff, or asserted a
paramount title: Held, that the bill
was demurrable for want of equity.
Bartlett v. Sultan of Turkey, 196

7. The female defendant owning real
and personal property, her husband,
acting as her agent for its sale, wil-
fully made false representations to
the plaintiffs as to the extent, condi-
tion and character of the property,
on the faith of which the plaintiffs
bought the property, giving a mort-
gage on it, to secure a negotiable
note, for a part of the purchase-money,
bearing semi-annual interest. The
plaintiffs went into possession under
the sale, and waited for a year, after
discovering the fraud, and paid one
instalment of interest, before bring-
ing this suit in the State Court, ask-
ing damages, and a rescission of the
sale, and an injunction restraining
the transfer of the note and mortgage.
The suit being removed into this
Court, the plaintiffs filed a separate
bill in equity, leaving the suit for
damages pending. The bill did not
offer to return or reconvey the prop-
erty: Held,

(1.) The contract could not be re-
scinded;

(2.) The note and the mortgage
could not be cancelled;

(3.) The transfer of the note and
mortgage should be enjoined;

(4.) The plaintiffs should be at lib-
erty to proceed with the action at
law for damages, without prejudice
from the refusal of equitable relief.
Schneider v. Foote,

See CARRIER, 7.

CORPORATION, 3.
COSTS, 1 to 12.
EVIDENCE, 2.
INJUNCTION.
JUDGMENT, I, 2.
JURISDICTION, 1.
NATIONAL BANK, 2 to 5.
PATENT, 7, 9, 13 to 17.
PLEADING.

511

PRACTICE, 1, 2, 6, 7, 10 to 12.
RELEASE.

TRADE-MARK, 3 to 7.
TRUST, 1.

EVIDENCE.

1. In a suit in equity, in this Court, the
disability of a wife, as a witness for
her husband, where he is interested,
arising from coverture, is not re-
moved by any statute of the United