2. An agreement to convey when the grantor shall be prepared to execute deeds in the proper form, does not give "color of title," within the above statute, to the intended grantee. - Osterman v. Baldwin, 6 Wallace, 116.

3. The running of the Statute of Limitations, on a cause of action by a citizen of New Hampshire against a citizen of Arkansas, was suspended while the courts of the latter State were closed by the war. - Hanger v. Abbott, 6 Wallace, 532. See COURT OF CLAIMS, 1.

A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to compel it to issue a mandamus to compel the Secretary of the Treasury to pay a sum awarded the petitioner by the Secretary of War, under a joint resolution of Congress. The remedy, if any, is a writ of error. - Ex parte De Groot, 6 Wallace, 497.

MEMORANDUM. - Death of Mr. Justice Wayne, 6 Wallace, vi.
MEXICO. - See CALIFORNIA, 1.

1. When all the bonds covered by a mortgage have been issued, the court cannot authorize a further issue under the same security, although a foreclosure has been decreed for less than the face of the bonds. - Vose v. Bronson, 6 Wallace, 452.

2. A railroad being sold on foreclosure, holders of mortgage bonds surrendered the same, and took certificates of stock in a new company formed by the purchasers (the former bondholders), in pursuance of the scheme of the sale. Held, that they could not afterwards object to the confirmation of the sale. Neither could a bondholder whose payment was a condition of the order.Crawshay v. Soutter, 6 Wallace, 639.

3. A bill, by a purchaser under a mortgage of a whole road and rolling stock, against one under a prior mortgage of a section of the same, claiming certain rolling stock, was dismissed on the facts (MILLER, J., dissenting).- Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 6 Wallace, 742; s.c. 2 Wallace, 609.

See BILLS AND NOTES, 2; EVIDENCE, 1; TAX.

The claimant under a New Madrid certificate acquires no vested interest in the land until the survey is filed in the recorder's office, and approved by him.Rector v. Ashley, 6 Wallace, 142.

NOTICE. See INDIAN.

under Judiciary Act, § 22, when the original has been destroyed during the war, without the fault of plaintiff in error.

A writ of error is not void because it does not show which of the parties named therein was plaintiff and which defendant in the court below. (The fact appeared on the record.) - Mussina v. Cavazos, 6 Wallace, 355.

7. A motion to revive a writ of error, on death of a party, by substituting his widow and heirs, is irregular. The court below should be applied to, to revive the suit in their name, and then a new writ could issue. - McClane v. Boon, 6 Wallace, 244.

8. The Act of May 19, 1828, § 3, re-enacted Aug. 1, 1842, having been made part of the law of Kansas by the Act of Jan. 29, 1861, § 4, an execution and sale by the marshal in said State, not made according to its laws, is void. Smith v. Cockrill, 6 Wallace, 756.

9. In a redhibitory action, by a purchaser of slaves in Louisiana, the defendant pleaded a general denial of the alleged defects, and also that the auctioneer, at the time of the sale, declared, at defendant's request, that the slaves must be examined by the purchaser's physician before delivery, but that plaintiff removed them without examination, and, if he had suffered any loss, that was the cause. Held, that the two pleas were well presented together.

What is reasonable diligence, on the part of the purchaser, in apprizing the vendor of defects, is a question for the jury, though the code allows one year for redhibitory actions. - Andrews v. Hensler, 6 Wallace, 254.

10. A motion for leave to file a bill in equity under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, is to be heard ex parte. - State of Georgia v. Grant, 6 Wallace, 241.

11. Failure to obtain leave to file an amended bill, and want of a replication, if not objected to in the court below, are waived. They are also within Act of Sept. 24, 1789, § 32. Decision on the facts as to alleged fraudulent conveyances. Clements v. Moore, 6 Wallace, 299.

12. When it is alleged that the value in controversy gives appellate jurisdiction in admiralty, but the fact does not appear of record, an opportunity may be allowed to prove it. The Grace Girdler, 6 Wallace, 441.

13. A libel for prize not being supported by the evidence, but a prima facie case of violation of municipal law being shown, restitution of the property was refused until the libellant should have had reasonable time to file a new libel.— The Watchful, 6 Wallace, 91.

See COLLISION, 1; CORPORATION; COSTS; COURT OF CLAIMS; ERROR; EVIDENCE, 2; JOINT DEBTOR; JURISDICTION, 3, 5-9; LIEN, 3; PARTITION; VERDICT, 2.

POWER.-See WILL.

PRESIDENT.-See CALIFORNIA, 3.

PRIZE.

Part of a cargo, on a vessel condemned as prize, was restored on the facts; a part belonging to Mexican citizens residing in enemy's country was condemned. The Flyiny Scud, 6 Wallace, 263.

See BLOCKADE; LIEN, 2; PLEADING AND PRACTICE, 13.

PROMISSORY NOTE. See BILLS AND NOTES.

PUBLIC USES.-See CALIFORNIA, 3.

PURSER.

A purser is not made a navy agent by being ordered to perform duties which such an agent would have performed had one been at the navy yard. (Act of March 3, 1809.) The purser's sureties are liable for his failure to disburse or account for money sent him to purchase supplies, and for disbursement for the use of the navy.

Unofficial letters of subordinate officers, and the purser's private books, are not admissible, in an action against his sureties, to contradict or explain the official adjustment of accounts, as shown in the duly certified transcripts.Strong v. United States, 6 Wallace, 788.

RAILROAD.-See JUDGMENT; MORTGAGE; TAX.

"Upon the decease of" A., "I devise the remainder of my estate" to B. B. died before A., unmarried, and without brothers or sisters. Held, that B. took a vested remainder, which went to the brothers and sisters, to the exclusion of the children of the testator, B.'s grandfather, under the Ohio Statute of 1815 (GRIER and CLIFFORD, JJ., dissenting).- Doe dem. Poor v. Considine, 6 Wallace, 458.

RESCISSION.-See SALE, 2.

SALE.

1. The conversion of chattels does not make a subsequent sale of them, by the owner, void. Tome v. Dubois, 6 Wallace, 548.

2. A fraudulent allegation of a purchaser at a tax sale, that there was no use in bidding, as he knew the owners, and they would redeem, thereby preventing others from bidding, is ground for setting aside the sale. Not so inadequate consideration, or sale of several parcels in one body, when separate bids could not be got. Sale set aside, in equity, on the facts. Slater v. Maxwell, 6 Wallace, 268.

See JUDICIAL SALE; LIEN, 1.

SAVINGS BANK.-See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3-5.
SECRETARY OF WAR.-See JURISDICTION, 1.

SET-OFF.

When the defendant, in an action by the United States, pleads a set-off under the Act of March 3, 1797, § 3, no judgment can be rendered against the Government, although a balance is shown in defendant's favor. State laws do not apply. Judgment of Court of Claims reversed. - United States v. Eckford, 6 Wallace,

STATE.-See CALIFORNIA, 2; CONFLICT OF FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITY; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1-5.

STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES.

June 20, 1788.-See JURISDICTION, 11. | Aug. 1, 1842.- -See PLEADING AND Sept. 24, 1789, § 11.- See PARTI

TION.

PRACTICE, 8

Sept. 24, 1789, § 12.-See JURISDIC- Aug. 6, 1846, § 16.-See EMBEZZLE

Sept. 24, 1789, § 32.- See PLEADING March 3, 1863.-See CONSTITUTIONAL

A railroad company can withhold, under Act of June 30, 1864, § 122, the five per cent United States tax on the interest due on its coupon bonds, though said bonds are secured by a mortgage conditioned on payment "without any deduction, defalcation, or abatement to be made of any thing for or in respect of any taxes, charges, or assessments whatsoever."-Haight v. Railroad Co., 6 Wallace, 15. See 2 Am. Law Rev. 709.-MORTGAGE, 2.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2-5; JURISDICTION, 4; SALE, 2.

TENANT IN COMMON.

That land stands in the names of several persons is no evidence of their partnership, or of the authority of one owner to sell the shares of the others. If it were, a sale of the land its subject would dissolve the partnership, and subsequent admissions of one owner would not bind the rest.—Thompson v, Bowman, 6 Wallace, 316.

TEXAS.

1. The Act of March 3, 1863, does not give the District Court of New Mexico jurisdiction of proceedings against land in El Paso, Texas, under the Act of July 17, 1862. - United States v. Hart, 6 Wallace, 770.