7. If the insured was so insane as to be incapable
of making an intelligent statement, this would of
itself excuse that condition of the policy.
442
8. Where the liability of four insurance companies
depended upon the same evidence and was founded
upon the same policy, and their defense rested on
the same issues, the action may be joint by consent.
Idem,
442
9. The judgment of the court, which is against the
defendants jointly for the full amount of the pol-
icy, is erroneous, but may be against each for one
fourth thereof.
Idem,
442
10. In a clause in a policy of insurance which ex-
cludes from the premises gunpowder, saltpeter and
other articles in the same class, held, that the words
"in quantities exceeding one barrel at any one
time are applicable alike to all the articles which
are specified in the clause.
Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Slaughter,
444
11. Insurance companies should declare their ex-
emptions from liability in policies, in terms which
cannot admit of controversy.
Idem,
12. The disability to sue imposed by the war
relieves the assured wholly from the consequences
of failing to bring suit within twelve months after
the loss as required by his policy.
13. As between a common carrier of goods and an
insurer of them, the liability to the owner for their
loss or destruction is primarily upon the carrier,
while the liability of the insurer is only secondary.
Hall v. R. R. Co.,
594
14. An insurer, who has paid a loss, may recover
Louisiana in which both parties were citizens of | was made and decided, of which this court has cog-
Louisiana.
nizance by writ of error or appeal.
484
34. Where the judgment of a state court might
have been based either upon a state law repugnant
to the Constitution or laws of the United States, or
upon some other independent valid ground, this
court will not take jurisdiction of the case.
635
35. Avowed present disloyalty to the Government
is a sufficient cause for the discharge of a juror, ir-
respective of his refusal to take the test oath; and
where it did not appear that he was discharged for
the latter cause, this court refused to take jurisdic-
tion of the case.
Idem,
635
36. This court cannot take jurisdiction of a writ
of a state judgment in an action to recover the
amount of a deposit in confederate treasury notes;
the judgment of the state court being against the
right to recover.
West Tenn. Bk. v. Citizens' Bk.,
514
37. When the averments of citizenship in bills are
not sufficient to give the circuit court jurisdiction,
the bills will be dismissed.
42. A decision of a state court that a contract, of
which the consideration was confederate money,
was void, does not of itself raise a federal question
of which this court has jurisdiction, when made
upon the general principles of public policy.
46. Municipal bonds and coupons are not within
the jurisdictional prohibition of sec. 11 of the Judi-
ciary Act, forbidding an action by an assignee when
the action could not be maintained by the assignor.
Lexington v. Butler,
809
47. Such prohibition does not apply to cases re-
moved into the circuit court from a state court.
Idem,
809
48. The District Court, sitting as a court of admi-
ralty, has jurisdiction of cases arising under the Act
of 1851 and may administer the law, as provided in
the 4th section.
Idem,
809
49. The proper course of proceeding in such a
case pointed out.
535
50. Where the decision of the state court was gov-
erned by the settled principles of the jurisprudence
of the State, this court cannot review the state
judgment.
Palmer v. Marston,
Sevier v. Haskell,
56. Absolute suspension of the right to sue, and
prohibition to exercise it, exist during war, by the
law of nations, but the restoration of peace re-
moves the disability and opens the doors of the
courts.
57. A Statute of Wisconsin requiring that an ac-
tion for the death of a person in that State caused
by a negligent or wrongful act, shall be brought in a
court of that State, does not prevent a non-resident
plaintiff from removing the action to a Federal
Court and maintaining it there under the Act of
Congress of Mar. 2, 1867.
58. The Act of Mar. 2, 1867, amending that of July
27, 1866, for the removal of causes from a State
court to a Federal Court, in which there is a contro-
versy between the citizens of a State in which the
suit is brought and the citizen of another State,
where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum of
$500 exclusive of costs, upon petition of the non-
resident party, is constitutional and valid.
Idem.
SEE APPEAL AND ERROR, 5, 6, 9, 12, 15, 16, 20, 21, Æ.
JURISDICTION, 34.
QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT, 3-9, 11.
Courts cannot assume, in their instructions to
757 juries, that facts are established, unless they are ad-
43. But when the court expressly rests its decis-mitted or the evidence respecting them is not con-
ion of the same question wholly on a state consti- troverted.
tutional provision, this court has jurisdiction of
the question whether that provision is in conflict
with the Constitution of the U. S.
2. But the lien is not good as against a bona fide | confirmee so far as the legal title is concerned, and
purchaser, without notice.
those equitably entitled to rights in the land under
the title confirmed must go into equity, where their
rights can be settled and decreed."
SEE COVENANT, 1-3.
EJECTMENT, 1, 3, 4.
PREEMPTION, 1-3.
TREATIES, 2.
20. But inchoate rights confirmed by Congress.
are valid only from their confirmation, and the
elder confirmée has a better right than the junior,
without reference to the date of the orgin of their
respective claims.
838
21. After the passage of the Act of 1812 the claim
of the Village of Carondelet was still indefinite and
unenforceable, until made definite by the survey
therein provided.
Idem,
838
22. The survey made in 1817, and retraced in 1834,
is binding upon the village and estops it from
claiming any land beyond the lines thus established.
Idem,
23. The Cerre claim, confirmed after such surveys
of 1817 and 1834, was subject to, and cannot prevail
against the title of the village.
838
24. In Pa. after a survey made and returned into
office, a second survey without an order of the
Board of Property is void.
867
Improvement Co. v. Munson,
25. Where a mortgagor of government land had
no title, the subsequent sale by the government
conveyed a good title to the purchasers, clear of
the mortgage.
26. An agreement, to prevent competition in bid-
ding at the government sale, is an objection to the
sale, that can only be taken by the government it-
self.
Idem,
LEGAL TENDER ACTS.
SEE DECREES & JUDGMENTS, 3, 4.
PAYMENT, 1.
74
2. Parties may waive a maritime lien, and resort
to common law remedies in the state court.
74
3. Judgments recovered in the Federal Courts are
liens in all cases where they are so by the laws of
the States.
Baker v. Morton,
262
4. A lien of a judgment is not valid, on lands ob-
tained by duress, as against the real owner.
262
5. If the credit, for coal furnished a vessel in a
foreign port, was given to the vessel, there is a lien,
and the burden of displacing it is on the claimant.
The Patapsco v. Boyce,
696
|