EVIDENCE (continued).

in reference to the property not conveyed, or not shown to have been
conveyed, were admissible. Bowen v. Chase, 254.

3. Parol evidence is admissible in equity to show that a certificate of
stock issued to a party as owner was delivered to him as security for
a loan of money. A court of equity will look beyond the terms of
an instrument to the real transaction, and when that is shown to be
one of security and not of sale, it will give effect to the actual con-
tract of the parties. Brick v. Brick, 514.

4. The rule which excludes such evidence to contradict or vary a written
instrument does not forbid an inquiry into the object of the parties
in executing and receiving it. Id.

EXCEPTIONS TO CHARGE TO JURY.

Exceptions to the charge of the court which are in general terms, and do
not clearly and specifically point out the objectionable part of it,
cannot be sustained as a ground for reversing the judgment. Rail-
road Company v. Varnell, 479.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT, ACTION FOR.

A., who was an officer of the army, and acting as a provost-marshal in
Vermont, arrested B., during the rebellion, on the charge of aiding
and abetting deserters from the army. At the time of making the
arrest, A. had no warrant, but was acting under orders of his com-
manding officer, based upon a report made to him by A. B. having
brought an action for false imprisonment against A., the latter, for
the purpose of satisfying the jury of the misconduct of B., and in
support of his own testimony as to the state of facts which he at the
time of making the arrest believed in good faith to exist, offered to
show, by evidence which was not known to him at the time of B.'s
release from imprisonment, that the latter had, during the rebellion,
been engaged in procuring men to enlist in the army, and to desert
after they had obtained their bounty; but the court, on the ground
that the offered evidence did not become known to A. until after
the commencement of the suit, excluded it. Held, that the evi-
Beckwith v. Bean,

dence was admissible in mitigation of damages.
266.

FEDERAL QUESTION. See Jurisdiction, 1, 4.

FEME SOLE. See Married Woman, Conveyance by, of her Separate
Estate, 2.

FINDINGS OF FACT. See Practice, 4.

FLORIDA. See French and Spanish Land-Grants.

FORECLOSURE. See Equity of Redemption; Mortgaged Premises, Order
of Sale of, 3.

FRAUD. See Purchase-money, Suit to enforce Lien for Payment thereof,

1, 3.

1. The frauds for which a bill to set aside a judgment or a decree be-
tween the same parties, rendered by a court of competent jurisdic-
tion, will be sustained, are those which are extrinsic or collateral to
the matter tried, and not a fraud which was in issue in the former
suit. United States v. Throckmorton, 61.
2. The cases where such relief has been granted are those in which, by
fraud or deception practised on the unsuccessful party, he has been
prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by reason of which there
has never been a real contest before the court of the subject-matter
of the suit. Id.

FRAUDULENT TRANSFER. See Assignee in Bankruptcy, 1.

FRENCH AND SPANISH LAND-GRANTS.

1. A Spanish grant of land situate in the District of St. Louis, made May
12, 1785, which this court, in Stanford v. Taylor (18 How. 409),
decided did not, without a survey, attach to any specific tract, was
in 1811 confirmed by the board of land commissioners. The first
survey was made in 1834, but was not carried into patent; and on
an application under the act of June 2, 1862 (12 Stat. 410), the
Secretary of the Interior issued instructions for another survey. It
was made, but he decided that no effect should be given to it, as it
did not conform to the calls of the grant. In ejectment, the de-
manded premises being embraced by that survey, the plaintiff, who
claimed under the grantee, offered in evidence it and one subse-
quently made by the surveyor of St. Louis County, Missouri, accom-
panied by proof that they conformed to the calls of the grant, and
were identical. The evidence was excluded. Held, 1. That the
survey, having been disapproved by the Secretary, has no binding
effect, and that the question of its correctness was not for the deter-
mination of the jury. 2. That in the absence of a subsisting recog-
nized survey, the grant not having been confirmed by ascertained
boundaries specifically set forth in the order of the board, so that
the tract can be located without a survey, the plaintiff cannot
recover. 3. That the act of June 6, 1874 (18 Stat. part 3, 62),
entitled "An Act to obviate the necessity of issuing patents for cer-
tain private land-claims in the State of Missouri, and for other
purposes," applies only to cases where the party interested is by law
entitled to a patent. Snyder v. Sickles, 203.

2. The act entitled "An Act for the final adjustment of private land-
claims in the States of Florida, Louisiana, and Missouri," approved
June 22, 1860 (12 Stat. 85), provides for presenting all such claims
in Florida and Louisiana to the registers and receivers of the several
land-offices, within their respective districts, and in Missouri to the
recorder of land-titles for the city of St. Louis, and for a report on
the claims to the Commissioner of the General Land-Office, and

FRENCH AND SPANISH LAND-GRANTS (continued).

through him to Congress. In all such cases Congress reserved the
right to confirm or to reject the claim. Scull v. United States, 410.
3. The eleventh section of the act authorizes the claimants in a defined

and limited class of cases to sue by petition in the District Court of
the United States within whose jurisdiction the land is situate. Id.
4. The title on which such a suit can be sustained must be one which
had been perfected under the Spanish or the French government
before the cession to the United States, and the lands separated
from the mass of the public domain by actual survey, or which are
susceptible of such separation by a description which will enable a
surveyor to ascertain and identify them by the boundaries found
in the grant, or in an order of survey or investiture of possession.
Id.

5. No person can bring suit under that act who by himself, or by those
under whom he claims, has not been out of possession over twenty
years. Id.

6. The act thus intended to provide a suit in the nature of ejectment
against the United States whether out of possession or in possession,
and to remove the bar of the Statute of Limitations. Id.

7. The claim under the grant in this case covers over seven million acres,
and it has never been actually surveyed or located; nor do the
claimants present any actual survey, or ask for one, to ascertain if
it be practicable under the description in the grant made in 1793.
Id.

8. An inspection of the maps presented by them, copied from the public
surveys extended over the region to which the grant refers, shows
that the calls for the boundary of the grant are impossible calls; that
the royal surveyor was not on the ground, and was mistaken as to
the locality of the natural objects on which he relied for descrip-
tion; and that no surveyor can by those calls locate or identify the
la d. Id.

9. The suit was not, therefore, authorized by said act of 1860. Id.
10. A mere permission by the commandant to settle on land in Florida,

not followed by a grant or by other evidence of title under the
Spanish government, will not sustain a claim in a suit in the District
Court, brought under the eleventh section of the act of June 22, 1860
(12 Stat. 85). United States v. Baltimore, 424.

11. Spanish grants made in Texas for lands in the "Neutral Ground,"
east of the Sabine, from 1790 to 1800, are valid. United States v.
Perot, 428.

12. The Mexican league applicable to grants of such lands, being a
square of 5000 varas on each side, has always been estimated at
4428.4 acres, the vara being considered 33§ American inches. Id.
13. The true Mexican vara is slightly less than 33 American inches; but
by use in California it is estimated at 33 inches, and in Texas at 33}
inches. Id.

FRENCH AND SPANISH LAND-GRANTS (continued).

14. The common usage of a country in reference to its measures should
be followed in estimating them, when mentioned in grauts taking
effect there. ld.

GRAND JURY. See Indictment.

GRANT. See French and Spanish Land-Grants; Land-Grant Railroads :
Mexican Land-Grants.

GUARDIAN, EMBEZZLEMENT OF PENSION-MONEY BY.
Congress has, under the Constitution, power to declare that the em-
bezzlement or fraudulent conversion to his own use by a guardian of
the money which he, on behalf of his wards, has received from the
government as a pension due to them, is an offence against the
United States, and to vest the proper Circuit Court with jurisdiction
to try and punish him therefor. United States v. Hall, 343.
HOMESTEAD CLAIMS. See Land-Grant Railroads, 1.
HOTEL-KEEPER, LIABILITY OF.

1. A. brought an action against the keeper of a public hotel in Illinois
to recover the value of a stock of jewelry, worth $6,300, which he
had in his travelling-bags at the hotel while he was there as a guest.
One of them was not locked, and both were left by him overnight
in the coat-room of the hotel, he taking from the boy in charge a
check therefor. The next morning, A. discovered that the jewelry
had been taken from the bag which was unlocked. The other bag
could not be found. A. had informed no one connected with the
hotel of their contents, although there was a safe there for the
custody of such property, and notice of the fact given, as re-
quired by the statute of that State. Held, that in the absence of
proof that the loss was occasioned by the hand or through the neg-
ligence of the hotel-keeper, or by a clerk or servant employed by
him in the hotel, A. was not entitled to recover. Elcox v. Hill,
218.

2. A hotel-keeper is not liable for a loss occasioned by the personal neg-
ligence of the guest himself. Id.

3. Evidence that a servant admitted that he had stolen the property
while he was employed at the hotel by the landlord is not admissible
in an action against the latter. Id.

HUSBAND AND WIFE, CONVEYANCE BY.

By the common law, if the husband and wife sell and convey her lands,
the money which he receives therefor, without any reservation of
rights on her part, will belong to him. Kesner v. Trigg, 50.

IDAHO. See Practice, 5.

ILLINOIS. See Equity of Redemption; Hotel-keeper, Liability of; Mort-
gaged Premises, Order of Sale of.

IMPORTER. See Limitations, Statute of, 1; Surety, 1, 2.

INDIAN RESERVATION. See Practice, 5.

INDICTMENT. See Criminal Law, 3-5.

Sect. 808 of the Revised Statutes, providing for impanelling grand juries
and prescribing the number of which they shall consist, applies only to
the Circuit and the District Courts of the United States. An indict-
ment for bigamy under sect. 5352 may, therefore, be found in a dis-
trict court of Utah, by a 'grand jury of fifteen persons, impanelled
pursuant to the laws of that Territory. Reynolds v. United States, 145.
INFANT, GRANT TO. See Mexican Land-Grants, 3.

INFERENCE. See Malicious Prosecution, 2.

INFRINGEMENT. See Letters-patent, 1, 4, 8, 9, 11.
INJUNCTION. See Limitations, Statute of, 1.

INSURANCE. See Waiver.

1. A policy upon a cargo in the name of A., "on account of whom it
may concern," or with other equivalent terms, will inure to the inter-
est of the party for whom it was intended by A., provided he at the
time of effecting the insurance had the requisite authority from such
party, or the latter subsequently adopted it. Hooper v. Robinson, 528.
2. No proof is necessary that the assured had an insurable interest at
that time. It is sufficient if such interest subsisted during the risk
and when the loss occurred. Id.

3. A policy "lost or not lost" is a valid stipulation for indemnity
against past as well as future losses. A contingent interest may be
the subject of such a policy. Id.

4. In an action against A. to recover the amount paid to him by the
underwriters, who allege that neither he nor his principal had an
insurable interest in such cargo, the burden of proof is on the
plaintiffs to show that fact. Id.

5. A. having received the money as agent, and promptly paid it over to his
principal, without notice of any adverse claim, or reason to suspect
it, the plaintiffs, having been guilty of laches, must look to that
principal. Id.

INSURABLE INTEREST. See Insurance.

INTEREST. See National Bank, 1, 2; Probable Cause, Certificate of.
INTEREST COUPONS. See Limitations, Statute of, 3.

IOWA. See Limitations, Statute of, 3.

JUDGMENT. See Fraud.

JUDGMENT AGAINST A CITY, ENFORCEMENT OF THE
PAYMENT THEREOF.

The indebtedness of a city is conclusively established by a judgment
recovered against it in a court of competent jurisdiction; and in
enforcing payment, the plaintiff is not restricted to any particular
property or revenues, or subject to any conditions, unless such judg-
ment so provides. United States v. New Orleans, 381.

JUDICIAL COMITY. See Constitutional Law, 4.