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. Pro- ceedings 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 repre- sent the owner, but, by contract with the owner, has undertaken to furnish such supplies at his own cost. The Kate, 458.
ASSIGNMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS.
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.
Wilson v. United States, 702.
Rosen v. United States, 161 U. S. 29, followed. Royal, ex parte, 161 U. S. 29, followed. Washington v. Coovert, 702. Smith v. McKay, 161 U. S. 355, followed. Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, followed, King v. Washington, 704.
Talton v. Mayes, 163 U. S. 376, followed. United States v. Boutwell, 17 Wall. 604, Long v. Lochner, 701.
Craemer v. Washington, 704;
Nordstrom v. Washington, 705. followed. United States ex rel.
Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U. S. 231, followed. Wurts v. Hoagland, 114 U. S. 606, followed.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1, 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.
Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47, distinguished from this case. Osborne v. Florida, 650.
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.
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.
COMMON CARRIER.
See RAILROAD.
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
act about to be done therein by the defendant to the injury of the plaintiff, under authority of a statute of the State, will be in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and also in violation of the constitution of the State, the Federal courts have jurisdiction of both classes of questions; but, in exercising that jurisdiction as to questions arising under the state constitution, it is their duty to be guided by and follow the decisions of the highest court of the State; (1), as to the construction of the statute; and (2), as to whether, if so con- strued, it violates any provision of that constitution. Loan Associa- tion v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655, shown to be in harmony with this decision. Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, 112.
2. The statute of California of March 7, 1887, to provide for the organiza- tion and government of irrigation districts, and to provide for the acquisition of water and other property, and for the distribution of water thereby for irrigation purposes, and the several acts amendatory thereof having been clearly and repeatedly decided by the highest court of that State not to be in violation of its constitution, this court will not hold to the contrary. Ib.
3. Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 104, cited and affirmed to the point that "whenever by the laws of a State or by state authority a tax, assessment, servitude or other burden is imposed upon property for the public use, whether it be for the whole State or of some more limited portion of the community, and those laws provide for a mode of confirming or contesting the charge thus imposed, in the ordinary courts of justice, with such notice to the person, or such proceeding in regard to the property as is appropriate to the nature of the case, the judgment in such proceedings cannot be said to deprive the owner of his property without due process of law, however obnoxious it may be to other objections." Ib.
4. There is no specific prohibition in the Federal Constitution which acts upon the State in regard to their taking private property for any but a public use. Ib.
5. What is a public use, for which private property may be taken by due process of law, depends upon the particular facts and circumstances connected with the particular subject-matter. Ib.
6. The irrigation of really arid lands is a public purpose, and the water thus used is put to a public use; and the statutes providing for such irrigation are valid exercises of legislative power. Ib.
7. The land which can be properly included in any irrigation district under the statutes of California is sufficiently limited to arid, un-› productive land by the provisions of the acts. Ib.
8. Due process of law is furnished, and equal protection of the law given in such proceedings, when the course pursued for the assessment and collection of taxes is that customarily followed in the State, and when the party who may be charged in his property has an opportunity to be heard. Ib.
« PreviousContinue » |