No. 627.

Decisions announced without Opinions.

HENDRY V. OCEAN STEAMSHIP Co. First Circuit. Granted, November 2, 1896. Mr. Eugene P. Carver and Mr. Edward E. Blodgett for petitioners. Mr. Charles Theodore Russell opposing.

No. 629. MERCHANTS' & MINERS' TRANSPORTATION Co. v. NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILROAD; and No. 630, SAME v. SAME. First Circuit. Denied, November 2, 1896. Mr. Eugene P. Carver and Mr. Edward E. Blodgett for petitioners. Mr. William G. Roelker opposing.

No. 645. LOUISVILLE TRUST Co. v. NEW ALBANY & CHICAGO RAILWAY. Sixth Circuit. Granted, November 16, 1896. Mr. George W. Kretzinger and Mr. C. E. Field for petitioner.

No. 646. LOUISVILLE BANKING Co. v. SAME. Sixth Circuit. Granted, November 16, 1896. Mr. George W. Kretzinger and Mr. C. E. Field for petitioner.

No. 490. AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING Co. v. STEAMSHIP G. R. BOOTH. Second Circuit. Denied, November 30, 1896. Mr. Harrington Putnam for petitioner. Mr. J. Parker Kirlin opposing.

Sixth Cir

No. 660. LOUISVILLE TRUST Co. v. CINCINNATI. cuit. Denied, December 7, 1896. Mr. Alexander Pope Humphrey, Mr. George M. Davie, Mr. E. A. Ferguson and Mr. St. John Boyle for petitioner. Mr. Frederick Hertenstein and Mr. J. D. Brannan opposing.

No. 651. CHISHOLM V. ABBOTT. First Circuit. First Circuit. Denied, December 21, 1896. Mr. John Lowell and Mr. E. S. Dodge for petitioner.

INDEX.

ACTION.

See RAILROAD, 1.

ADMIRALTY.

A New York corporation owned and operated steamships plying between that port and Brazil. A Pennsylvania company was in the habit of supplying these ships with coal as ordered, charging the New York company therefor upon its books, and as further security for the running indebtedness, filed specifications of lien against the vessels under a statute of New York. Subsequently the New York company began to employ in their business other steamers under time charter parties which required the charterers to provide and pay for all coals furnished them, and the Pennsylvania company supplied these ships also with coals, knowing that they were not owned by the New York company, and understanding, although not absolutely knowing, and not inquiring about it, that the charterers were required to provide and pay for all needed coals. None of such coals were supplied under orders of the master of a chartered vessel, but the bills therefor were rendered to the New York company, which, when the supplies were made owed nothing for the hire of the vessels. The coals were not required in the interest of the owners of the chartered vessels. Proceedings having been taken in admiralty to enforce liens for coal against the vessel, Held, (1) That as the libellant was chargeable with knowledge of the provisions of the charter party no lien could be asserted under maritime law for the value of the coal so supplied; (2) Without deciding whether the statute of New York would be unconstitutional if interpreted as claimed by the libellant, it gives no lien where supplies are furnished to a foreign vessel on the order of the charterer, the furnisher knowing that the charterer does not represent the owner, but, by contract with the owner, has undertaken to furnish such supplies at his own cost. The Kate, 458.

APPEAL.

See JURISDICTION A, 6.

ASSIGNMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS.

See LOCAL Law, 1.

BOND..

See PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.

CALIFORNIA IRRIGATION LAWS.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1 to 9.

CASES AFFIRMED OR FOLLOWED.

Chapman v. United States, 164 U. S. 436, followed. Prather v. United

States, 452.

Chase v. United States, 155 U. S. 489, followed. United States v. King, 703.
Davis v. Texas, 139 U. S. 651, followed. Nordstrom v. Washington, 705.
Draper v. United States, 164 U. S. 240, followed. Nordstrom v. Washing-

ton, 705.

Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, followed. Wiscon-
sin v. Baltzell, 702.

Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516, followed. Nordstrom v. Washing-
ton, 705.

Jacobs v. George, 150 U. S. 415, followed. Henry v. Alabama & Vicksburg
Railroad, 701.

McElroy v. United States, 164 U. S. 76, followed. Cohen v. United
States, 702.

McNalty v. California, 149 U. S. 645, followed. Nordstrom v. Washing-
ton, 705.

Washington v. Coovert, 702.
Tucker v. McKay, 701.

Rosen v. United States, 161 U. S. 29, followed. Wilson v. United States, 702.
Royal, ex parte, 161 U. S. 29, followed.
Smith v. McKay, 161 U. S. 355, followed.
Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, followed,
King v. Washington, 704.

Craemer v. Washington, 704;

Nordstrom v. Washington, 705.

Talton v. Mayes, 163 U. S. 376, followed.
United States v. Boutwell, 17 Wall. 604, followed. United States ex rel.
Long v. Lochner, 701.

Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U. S. 231, followed.
Wurts v. Hoagland, 114 U. S. 606, followed.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1,

CRIMINAL LAW, 25;

3;

Washington v. Coovert, 702.
Wisconsin v. Baltzell, 702.

JURISDICTION, A, 1, 13; E, 1;
NATIONAL BANK, 2;

DIRECT TAX REFUNDING ACT, 2; PUBLIC LAND, 1.

CASES DISTINGUISHED.

Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47, distinguished from this case. Osborne
v. Florida, 650.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 18.

CASES QUESTIONED OR DOUBTED.

See FRAUDS, STATUTE OF, 3.

CHEROKEE NATION.

See JURISDICTION, F.

CIRCUIT COURT CLERK.

See FEES, 1, 2, 3, 4.

CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.
See CORPORATION.

CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

1. In actions in the Court of Claims interest prior to the judgment cannot
be allowed to claimants, against the United States; but the provisions
of Rev. Stat. § 966 peremptorily require it to be allowed to the United
States, against claimants, under all circumstances to which the statute
applies, and without regard to equities which might be considered
between private parties. United States v. Verdier, 213.

2. S. contracted with the United States, in 1888, to erect a custom-house
at Galveston. H. was his surety on a bond to the United States for
the faithful performance of that contract. The contract gave the gov-
ernment a right to retain a part of the price until the work should be
finished. In consideration of advances made, and to be made, by a
bank, S. gave it in 1890, written authority to receive from the United
States the final contract payment so reserved. The Treasury declined
to recognize this authority, but consented, on the request of the con-
tractor, to forward, when due, a check for the final payment to the
representative of the bank. Later S. defaulted in the performance of
his contract, and H., as surety, without knowledge of what had taken
place between the bank, the contractor and the Treasury, assumed per-
formance of the contract obligations, and completed the work, disburs-
ing, in so doing, without reimbursement, an amount in excess of the
reserved final payment. The bank and H., each by a separate action
sought to recover that reserved sum from the government. The cases
being heard together it is Held, that, a claim against the government
not being transferable, the rights of the parties are equitable only, and
the equity, if any, of the bank in the reserved fund, being acquired in
1890, was subordinate to the equity of H. acquired in 1888. Prairie
State Bank v. United States, 227.

See PUBLIC LAND, 5, 6.

COMMON CARRIER.

See RAILROAD.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

1. In a suit, brought in a Circuit Court of the United States by an alien
against a citizen of the State in which the court sits, claiming that an