stituted proceedings under §§ 4283 et seq., Rev. Stat., cannot
proceed in admiralty in a separate suit, and must prove his claim
in the limited liability proceeding. Ib.
5. Limitation of liability proceeding; monition as injunction against
proceedings in other courts on claims against vessel owners.
The issuing of an injunction in the limited liability proceeding is not
necessary to stop proceedings in other courts on claims against the
vessel or its owners. Power to grant an injunction exists under
§ 4283, Rev. Stat., but when the procedure required by rule 54
has been followed, the monition itself has the effect of a statutory
injunction. (Providence & N. Y. Steamship Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co.,
109 U. S. 578.) Ib.
6. Limited liability proceedings; claims included in.
Under §§ 4283, 4284, Rev. Stat., as amended by § 18 of the act of
June 26, 1884, 23 Stat. 55, c. 12, any and all debts and liabilities
of the owner incurred on account of the ship without his privity
or fault are included in the limited liability proceeding, including
claim for salvage after collision. (Richardson v. Harmon, 222
U. S. 96.) Ib.
7. Fifty-fourth rule; object not to be defeated.
The manifest object of the fifty-fourth rule in admiralty cannot be
defeated solely because its enforcement might involve expense,
delay or inconvenience. Ib.
8. Collision; towage; analogy of claim for, to one for repairs.
Quare: Whether liability for towage into port of a vessel after collision
is a claim like one for repairs by reason of the collision for which
the owners of the injured vessel may recover from guilty colliding
vessel. Ib.
9. Salvage service; preference of claims for, quære as to.
Quare: Whether a highly meritorious salvage service, benefiting alike
the owner and creditors of a vessel, is entitled to preference from
the fund. Ib.
ADMISSION OF STATES.
See STATES, 1, 2.
ALIENATION OF LAND.
See INDIANS, 1, 2.
ALIEN IMMIGRATION ACT.
See IMMIGRATION, 1, 4.
ALLOTMENTS.
See INDIANS, 1-7.
AMENDMENT.
See ADMIRALTY, 2.
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.
Fifth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 6, 7, 14;
Fourteenth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7, 18;
PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATIONS, 7.
Sixth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 5;
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 5;
Generally. See EVIDENCE, 2.
APPEAL AND ERROR.
1. From Court of Claims; rule governing.
The general rule governing appeals is applicable to appeals from the
Court of Claims. United States v. Ellicott, 524.
2. From Court of Claims; second decree after passage of act of Congress
appealable.
As after a decree of the Court of Claims in favor of the petitioner an
act of Congress was passed, and the court made another decree
granting the same relief, the second decree was a decision upon the
effect of the subsequent legislation, and an appeal lies therefrom
if taken within the time prescribed by law. Cherokee Nation v.
Whitmire, 108.
3. From Court of Claims; timeliness of.
Held, that under the circumstances of this case, and the proceedings
taken thereon, appellants' appeal was taken in time. Ib.
4. Writ of error to state court; scope of review.
On writ of error to the state court this court may examine the entire
record, including the evidence, to determine whether what pur-
ports to be a finding of fact is not so involved with, and dependent
upon, questions of Federal law, as to be really a decision thereof.
Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Albers Commission Co., 573.
In this case the finding of the state court as to a rate charged by an
interstate carrier necessarily involved the interpretation and con-
struction of the Interstate Commerce Act, and this court can
examine the evidence and ascertain for itself the validity of the
rate under the statute.
6. Questions for review; to what extent finding of citizenship of party dis-
missed from suit reviewable.
Errors assigned as to finding of citizenship of a party dismissed from
the suit at instance of appellant are not here for review except as
to the force and effect to be given to a decree pro confesso against
other defendants before dismissal of the bill. Cuebas v. Cuebas,
376.
7. Appeal from order dismissing bill for injunction; disposition where
thing sought to be restrained accomplished.
Where pending trial below and hearing of appeal the object unsuccess-
fully sought to be enjoined has been accomplished-in this case
the erection of a building by a bank-the only ground left for
further prosecution is costs, and the appeal will be dismissed.
Wingert v. First National Bank, 670.
8. Mandate; opinion as part of.
A direction in the mandate that the court below proceed in accordance
with the opinion operates to make the opinion a part of the
mandate as completely as though set out at length. Metropolitan
Water Co. v. Kaw Valley District, 519.
9. To Circuit Court of Appeals from District Court in habeas corpus
proceeding.
Where the District Court takes jurisdiction and proceeds to determine
the merits in a habeas corpus proceeding, the respondent can
carry the case to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Tang Tun v.
Edsell, 673.
10. From interlocutory order; Court of Appeals may direct dismissal
bill.
On appeal from a mere interlocutory order the Circuit Court of Ap-
peals may direct the bill to be dismissed if it appears that the
complainant is not entitled to maintain his suit. Metropolitan
Water Co. v. Kaw Valley District, 519.
See CONTEMPT OF COURT, 1;
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, 1, 2;
INJUNCTION, 1;
JUDGMENTS AND DECREES, 1;
JURISDICTION;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 4, 15.
The Carmack amendment to the Hepburn act of June 29, 1906, 34
Stat. 584, 595, c. 3591, is not unconstitutional. (Atlantic Coast
Line v. Riverside Mills, 219 U. S. 186.) Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry.
Co. v. Wallace, 481.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 1, 2, 3;
JURISDICTION, E 7.
American Banana Co. v. United States, 213 U. S. 347, distinguished in
United States v. Nord Deutscher Lloyd, 512.
Bailey v. Alabama, 211 U. S. 452, distinguished in Collins v. Texas, 288.
Crain v. United States, 162 U. S. 625, distinguished in Powers v. United
States, 303.
People's Bank v. Marye, 191 U. S. 272, distinguished in Oklahoma v.
Wells, Fargo & Co., 298.
Oklahoma v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 223 U. S. 298, distinguished in United
States Express Co. v. Minnesota, 335.
Ryan v. Railroad Co., 99 U. S. 382, distinguished in Southern Pacific
R. R. Co. v. United States, 560.
Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. United States, 168 U. S. 1, distinguished
in United States v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., 565.
Texas & Pacific Railway v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 246, dis-
tinguished in Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Cook Brewing
Co., 204 U. S. 70; Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Wallace, 204
U. S. 481.
American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister, 207 U. S. 284, followed in
Bornn Hat Co. v. United States, 713.
Appleby v. Buffalo, 221 U. S. 524, followed in Thayer v. Schaben, 714.
Atlantic Coast Line v. Riverside Mills, 219 U. S. 186, followed in
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Wallace, 481.
Bagley v. General Fire Extinguisher Co., 212 U. S. 477, followed in
Van Sice v. Ibex Mining Co., 712.
Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U. S. 241, followed in Jacob v. Roberts, 261.
Brown v. Alton Water Co., 222 U. S. 325, followed in Metropolitan
Water Co. v. Kaw Valley District, 519.
Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470, followed in The Abby Dodge, 166.
California National Bank v. Thomas, 171 U. S. 441, followed in Thayer
v. Schaben, 714.
Chase v. Phillips, 216 U. S. 616, followed in Chase v. Phillips, 715.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Tompkins, 176 U. S. 167,
lowed in Lincoln Gas & Electric Light Co. v. Lincoln, 349.
Chicago, R. I. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Arkansas, 219 U. S. 453, followed in
Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Indiana, 713.
Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130, followed in Second Employers' Lia-
bility Cases, 1.
Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U. S. 559, followed in Cincinnati v. Louisville
& Nashville R. R. Co., 390.
David Kaufman & Sons Co. v. Smith, 216 U. S. 610, followed in Yeung
How v. North, 705; Cassidy v. Colorado, 707; J. A. Scriven Co. v.
|