liens when the libels were filed; that the question of jurisdiction was,
as the case stood, one for the District Court to decide in the first
instance; that the District Court had jurisdiction; and that the judg-
ment under review was in effect an unlawful interference with pro-
ceedings in that court. Moran v. Sturges, 256.

3. Though courts, for the purpose of protecting their jurisdiction over
persons and subject-matter, may enjoin parties who are amenable to
their process, and subject to their jurisdiction, from interference with
them in respect of property in their possession or identical contro-
versies therein pending, by subsequent proceedings as to the same
parties and subject-matter in other courts of concurrent jurisdiction;
and though, where property is in the actual possession of one court
of competent jurisdiction, such possession cannot be disturbed by
process out of another court; yet, upon the facts disclosed in this
record, the District Court was not required to stay its hand until the
termination of the proceedings in the state court, that court being
without jurisdiction as to maritime liens, and being incapable of dis-
placing them. Ib.

4. The District Court in a libel in admiralty for collision, having adjudged
both vessels to be in fault, and only one having appealed, the only
question here is as to the fault of the appealing vessel; and on the
evidence the court holds it to have been in fault. The Des Moines,
584.

5. On a question purely of fact the court finds the St. John in fault, and
decrees accordingly. The St. John, 586.

6. On the facts detailed in the opinion, the court holds that there was
no contributory negligence on the part of the libellant. The Adelia,
593.

7. On a review of the facts it is held that the Northfield was free from
fault and the decree below is affirmed. Hutchinson v. The Northfield,
629.

8. By the terms of a charter party to the United States, the owner of a
vessel undertook to keep her tight, staunch, strong and sound, and
her machinery, boilers and everything pertaining to her in perfect
working order, and to provide her with everything necessary for effi-
cient sea-service. The government undertook to deliver the vessel to
the owner in New York at the expiration of the charter party in as
good condition as she was at the signing of it, ordinary wear and tear,
damage by the elements, bursting of boilers, breaking of machinery
excepted. The vessel was injured and sunk by a marine risk assumed
by the charterer while engaged in the transportation of stores and
men in the waters of North Carolina. She was raised and taken to
New Berne, where she was temporarily repaired by the government;
but, being found out of order, was discharged at Port Royal by the
government, and taken to New York by the owner. Held, that by
reason of the failure of the owner to keep the vessel tight, staunch,

strong and sound, the government was relieved from its liability
to deliver the vessel to the owner in New York. Strong v. United
States, 632.

9. The findings of fact by the Circuit Court in an admiralty suit are con-
clusive upon this court. The Louisville, 657.

BANKRUPT.

1. The order of the Circuit Court in this case, directing an assignment to
the trustees in bankruptcy of the judgment against the oil company
on bills transferred by the bankrupt to the appellant, is affirmed.
First National Bank of Cincinnati v. Cook, 628.

2. A decree setting aside a conveyance by a bankrupt to his wife as
fraudulent is sustained; but it is also held that a personal decree
against her for rents, issues and profits, and for the use and occupa-
tion of the premises was error. Clark v. Beecher, 631.

3. On the facts it is held that the conveyance which is the subject of dis-
pute in this suit was fraudulent under the bankrupt laws. Woolfolk
v. Nisbet, 650.

4. Members of a limited partnership purchased and paid for the interest
of one of the members. Subsequently the remaining members became
bankrupt. Held, that the assignee in bankruptcy had no claim
against the outgoing partner as a debtor by reason of this transaction.
Wight v. Condict, 666.

CASES AFFIRMED OR FOLLOWED.

1. The judgment in this case is reversed on the authority of Covington &
Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204. Covington & Cin-
cinnati Railroad, Transfer & Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 224.

2. Reagan v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362, affirmed, fol-
lowed and applied to the facts in this case. Reagan v. Mercantile
Trust Co., 413.

3. Reagan v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362, followed. Reagan
v. Mercantile Trust Co., 418; Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.,
420.

4. United States v. Philadelphia, 11 How. 609, followed. United States v.
Harrison, 531; Same v. Carrère, 532.

5. Woods v. Lawrence County, 1 Black, 386, affirmed and followed. Rich-
ardson v. Lawrence County, 536.

6. McGuire v. Massachusetts, 3 Wall. 387, followed. Hammond v. Massa-
chusetts, 550.

7. Van Allen v. Assessors, 3 Wall. 573, followed. Churchill v. Utica, 550;
Williams v. Nolan, 551.

8. Brown v. Bass, 4 Wall. 262, followed.

Brown v. Johnson, 551.

9. United States v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407, followed. United States v. May-

rand, 552.

10. Green v. Van Buskirk, 5 Wall. 307, followed. Tillinghast v. Van Buskirk,
553; Same v. Same, 557.

11. A petition for a writ of mandamus is denied on the authority of
Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 6 Wall. 742. Ex parte Milwaukee &
Minnesota Railroad Co., 554.

12. Dismissed on the authority of Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50, and
Georgia v. Grant, 6 Wall. 241. Mississippi v. Stanton and Grant, 554.
13. Gaines v. New Orleans, 6 Wall. 642, followed. Gaines v. Lizardi, 555.
14. United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385, followed. United States v. Cook,
555.

15. Union Insurance Co. v. United States, 6 Wall. 759, followed. United
States v. Bales of Cotton, 556.

16. Williamson v. Suydam, 6 Wall. 723, followed.

557.

Williamson v. Moore,

17. Bronson v. Rodes, 7 Wall. 229, followed. Dutton v. Palairet, 563.
18. United States v. Adams, 7 Wall. 463, followed.

United States v. Mowry,

564; Same v. Morgan, 565; Same v. Burton, 566.

19. Ex parte Zellner, 9 Wall. 244, followed. Ex parte Pargoud, 567.
20. Railroad Co. v. Fremont County, 9 Wall. 89, followed. Burlington &
Missouri River Railroad Co. v. Mills County, 568.

21. Willard v. Presbury, 14 Wall. 676, followed. Willard v. Willard, 568.
22. Butz v. Muscatine, 8 Wall. 575, followed. United States v. Burlington,
568.

Flanders v. Tweed, 569.
Supervisors v. Durant,

23. Flanders v. Tweed, 9 Wall. 425, followed.
24. Supervisors v. Durant, 9 Wall. 415, followed.
571; Washington County v. Mortimer, 571.
25. Knox County v. Aspinwall, 21 How. 539, and City v. Lamson, 9 Wall.
477, followed. Kenosha v. Lamson, 573.

26. Little v. Herndon, 10 Wall. 26, followed. Long v. Patton, 573; Under-
hill v. Herndon, 574; Sturtevant v. Herndon, 575; Underhill v. Patton,
575.

27. United States v. Anderson, 9 Wall. 56, followed. United States v.
Pollard, 577.

Riley v. Welles, 578.

28. Wolcott v. Des Moines Co., 5 Wall. 681, followed.
29. Ex parte Graham, 10 Wall. 541, followed. Ex parte Waples, 579.
30. Garnett v. United States, 11 Wall. 256, followed.
States, 579.

31. Smith v. Stevens, 10 Wall. 321, followed.
32. United States v. Hodson, 10 Wall. 395,
Hodson, 580; Same v. Mynderse, 580.

Garnett v. United

Stevens v. De Aubrie, 580.
followed. United States v.

Cousin v. Generes, 581.
Ex parte Loud, 582.
Jacoway v. Denton, 583.

33. Bethell v. Demaret, 10 Wall. 537, followed.
34. Ex parte McNiel, 13 Wall. 236, followed.
35. Sevier v. Haskell, 14 Wall. 12, followed.
36. Pico v. United States, 2 Wall. 279, and Peralta v. United States, 3 Wall.
434, followed. Diaz v. United States, 590.

37. Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 129, followed. Norton v. Jamison, 591.

38. Oulton ́v, Savings Institution, 17 Wall. 109, followed. Oulton v. San
Francisco Savings Union, 591.

39. Olcott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678, followed. Humbird v. Jackson
County, 592.

40. Tomlinson v. Jessup, 15 Wall. 454, followed. Charleston v. Jessup,
592.

41. State v. Stoll, 17 Wall. 425, followed. South Carolina ex rel. Robb v.
Gurney, 593.

42. Railroad Co. v. Fuller, 17 Wall. 561, followed. Chicago & North-
western Railway Co. v. Fuller, 595.

43. The Confiscation Cases, 20 Wall. 92, followed. Kenner v. United States,
595; United States v. Six Lots, 596.

44. Habich v. Folger, 20 Wall. 1, followed. Priest v. Folger, 597.

45. Bigelow v. Forrest, 9 Wall. 339, and Day v. Micou, 18 Wall. 156, fol-
lowed. Brugere v. Slidell, 598.

46. Northwestern Union Pucket Co. v. Clough, 21 Wall. 317, followed.
Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. Viles, 608.

47. Chambers County v. Clews, 21 Wall. 317, followed. Lee County v.
Clews, 609.

48. Schulenberg v. Harriman, 21 Wall. 44, followed. Schow v. Harriman,
609.

49. Cary v. San Francisco Savings Union, 22 Wall. 38, followed. Oulton v.
Savings & Loan Society, 615.
50. Barnes v. Railroad Co., 17
Co., 20 Wall. 323, followed.
51. Haycraft v. United States, 22 Wall. 81, followed. Lane v. United

Wall. 294, and Stockdale v. Atlantic Ins.
Oulton v. California Insurance Co., 615.

States, 615.

52. Bailey v. Clark, 21 Wall. 284, followed. Bailey v. Work, 616.

53. Blake v. National Banks, 23 Wall. 307, followed.

Blake v. Fourth

National Bank, 616.

54. Gregory v. McVeigh, 23 Wall. 294, followed.

Windsor v. McVeigh,

617.

55. Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655, followed. Commercial Bank
v. Iola, 617.

56. Mining Co. v. Boggs, 3 Wall. 304, followed.
57. Atherton v. Fowler, 91 U. S. 143, followed.
58. Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45; Sanger

v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56; and
Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65, followed. Herhold v. Upton, 621.
59. Affirmed upon the authority of Bigelow v. Forrest, 9 Wall. 339; Day v.

Micou, 18 Wall. 156; and Wallach v. Van Riswick, 92 U. S. 202.
Davies v. Slidell, 625.

60. Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275, followed.

Morrill v. Wisconsin,

626.

61. Van Norden v. Benner, 131 U. S. App. cxlv, followed. Van Norden v.
Washburn, 627.

62. Ray v. Norseworthy, 23 Wall. 128, followed. Haynes v. Pickett, 627.

Crary v. Devlin, 619.
Atherton v. Fowler, 620.

63. McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 391, followed by stipulation of parties.
McCready v. Virginia, 628.

64. Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, followed. Corry v. Campbell,

629.

65. Railroad Co. v. Vance, 96 U. S. 450, followed. Indianapolis & St. Louis
Railroad v. Vance, 638.

66. Thompson v. Butler, 95 U. S. 694, followed. Northwestern Life Ins. Co.
v. Martin, 640.

67. Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130, followed.
68. Burke v. Miltenberger, 19 Wall. 579, followed.
69. Commissioners v. Sellew, 99 U. S. 624, followed.

Wilson v. Goodrich, 640.
Burke v. Tregre, 641.
Leavenworth v. Kinney,

642.

70. Arthur v. Davies, 96 U. S. 135, and Arthur v. Rheims, 96 U. S. 143, fol-

lowed and applied. Faxon v. Russell, 644.

71. County of Macon v. Shores, 97 U. S. 272, and Smith v. Clark County,
54 Missouri, 59, followed. Dallas County v. Huidekoper, 654.

72. Dallas County v. Huidekoper, 154 U. S. Appx. 654, followed. Dallas
County v. Huidekoper, 655.

73. Railroad Co. v. Grant, 98 U. S. 398, followed. Bank of the Republic v.
Millard, 656.

74. Removal Cases, 100 U. S. 457, followed. Gage v. Carraher, 656.

75. Railroad Company v. Blair, 100 U. S. 661, followed. Gurnee v. Blair,

659.

76. Carroll v. Dorsey, 20 How. 204, followed. Sea v. Connecticut Mutual
Life Ins. Co., 659.

77. Cowdrey v. Vandenburgh, 101 U. S. 572, followed. Cowdrey v. Vanden-
burgh, 659.

78. National Bank v. Graham, 100 U. S. 699, followed. Whitney v. First
Nat. Bank of Brattleboro, 664.

79. Richmond Mining Co. v. Eureka Mining Co., 103 U. S. 839, followed.
Richmond Mining Co. v. Eureka Mining Co., 664.

80. Scotland County v. Thomas, 94 U. S. 682, and Schuyler County v.
Thomas, 98 U. S. 169, followed. Benton County v. Rollens, 665.

81. Green v. Fisk, 103 U. S. 518, followed.
82. Roberts v. Bolles, 101 U. S. 119, followed.
83. Railway Co. v. Heck, 102 U. S. 130, followed.
84. Hecht v. Boughton, 105 U. S. 235, followed.

Levy v. Dangel, 671.
Bonnifield v. Price, 672;

Upton v. Mason, 675; Upton v. Steele, 675; Kahn v. Hamilton, 677.
85. United States v. Rosenburgh, 7 Wall. 580, and United States v. Avery, 13

Wall. 251, followed. United States v. Canda, 674.

Green v. Fisk, 668.
Roberts v. Bolles, 670.

86. Ralls County Court v. United States, 105 U. S. 235, followed. Ralls

County Court v. United States, 675.

87. United States v. Kaufman, 96 U. S. 567, followed.

Barnett, 676.

88. Steines v. Franklin County, 14 Wall. 15, followed.
Assurance Society, 676.

United States v.

Grame v. Mutual