m ent of the answer, and is'to the effecltbatBacon, the complaifiant,cannot because he a»signed the contract to the land to 'Cllirk. ·toPh'e1al3fRgntttent'of error isn<lt'well'founded iti!ftll(!lti l!'fhe testirtlimy shows the complainant did, at one time, desire to assign the oontract-to to"that:ceftectJi 'a'iidsent·;j't to 'Clark, and that· be'putllrl: respol\dentfofchil:l aWl0val,tlsTecflliredby but the'r'e-; Bpondent refused to approve the assignment, alldthereuponthe trnllsfer was abandoned, and the indorsement"to"i(tJlarkj;withlliis'conslmt, Btricken the t,o the ,',;.' \ , j ,.. TlWlle, bemlr& ei'l't'lr 'itt 1tli& oonrt. 'tlie same is" affirmed. :. ,J L f C-' ': , :\
j
) "
;
:I'.J /.L· : .. 1(1 fJ f,;
:
11'
I ..
i
i,:
')
,: '; 1,1 ;::',,',
,'10
j )
,',1 :.)
'L
RY1. ;'I! ;; ".J
11. NORTJII!1mf , ' I . .'
,PAC. B..' Co.:: ')t'!:
r :n
J,!
"yr;'
'George J:
Circuit eourtofthe·lJTriited Statesifor the .District} of ' : i ",,'U '.1 f .: ,. . ... , ' . ,Suit iniequity: to recoVer by·theNotthern Pacific :Railroad &';, PAcific 'Rllilrolid Cotllpany, ftir 'which theSti Paul; Mmneapolis & ManitobaR8:HwayCompauywas aftfur'lt . 'preliniir'lary inj erwardssubatituted. 1ieard . below: on' tion;. whicnJiWtisgrantedi A,ffilmed."· " MhJnesdt8.': !:""..
.Jon/riO. BuUitt, BeforeCA!p:liW·E:L'f:.,' : :.., :1. lj.·.·,','.J. i .' _ ..
atitl:.f. ·M.1Jtldreyl'for ,;.:', .: . ' ; i
.'. '.' . :J"...
':::'.,;',
...,.,.t ';;" .J ridge;] aO,d Sa:IR.t\l3': and ·':FHAY'EIti . , i·.'_··,:' ,'i ,
-
,i
,·;i:;"":
f,
i"
i' ".:;.;,.
oJ'
'j;,
J.
[',,"!,'.1
i¢rii..
.lhttde1 bY i 1ha cirbuitIcourt' ihj1ipction, decisitiii'
prdpeifrt't.ntil .the unal
the; distriet'ldflNIihnescita;,:gl'an,tfiig. a of certai,i;i ·\ : ·.1· '.\ '. " ,
'Jitigilrit:
ST. PAUL, M·. '.!
r.r.
llY.
co.
V. NORTHEllN PAC. 11. CO.
307
stated, tpefact.g arefUliJolJows: . the act of congress of July 2, lllctsameg.da1jorM aI!d s\lppl,ementaJ,thereto, Northenthled to certain. lands alot/g the ern PacifiQ line ofits railway, and & Pacific Railway Company became entitled to certain lands, under the act.of congress of March 3, ,1857. and the acts amendatory and supplemental thereto. For the purpose of settlingthe rights.of the respective companies in and to cerbl.in lands which are within th\'llimits of both the grants above named, ,the, Northern Pacircuit courHol, cific Company, by its bill in equity duly filed in the Minnesotll' asserted its right tq the lanq.s in dispute against the saidSt,Paul & Pacific Company. Before this suit came to a hearing" theSkPaul,MinneapQlis & ¥anitoba Company became a party thereto, having succee<le<lto allthe rights of the St. Paul & Pacific Company·. ' " The lands in dispute in, that cause ,4;J.ivided into three classes, towit, the place.OlJ 20-mile limit. of the line, of the Northern Pacific Company; those withip the indemnity limits ofthe. grants to the NorthernPf.l,cific, and inclurled within the terms of a witPdrawal of lands by order' of the United StatE\S laI!d under date ofOctober 12, l;870; tl1QSft :within tbEl limiijl :of the grants to the Nortqern PllCi6c"bu,which were not"within the terms of the withdrawal ,order Pending apl;loll or June 13, 1878, ,by.6tJiJ)Qlation betweenihepl\rties, the court appointed ,Edward Sawyer aspeeit,U with. au.thority to sell the lan<:l8 in dispute, or so much 8S might be: :llold.under the order of the court., the proceeds ofsalel \whethe..- mOlley. th.eevidence ofIUpney, or securities, with the interest collected thereon, to be held subject to the final decree of the COUl't,w,hich was to. opera{e .thereon. as .the same Were the lands from the8llIes,whll.reof. they were ··renlized. ·TPe commias.ioner accepted this tl'Ust,8ivingsecurity of his duty particulars· . of the caqse went to decree in the cirit being beldthattheNorthern Bacific Company was to the lands that, came first· second classes hereinbefore described, and :that as to the lands within the thirdclat's the bill should bedismisEled, "without prejudice to the·J,igllt of said. plaintiff, its suee-essors or assigns, to Institute and prosequte further p..-oceedings, eitheratlaw orequitYi as to it ,or them mayseeru necessary or prope.r Jor its Of' their rights and title, if any. to said lands 110t80 awarded tQsaid plaint.itf," The. cquse was cal:ried by appeal tq the 8upremecourt of the Unite9States, and .the decreerelldered ,wasarfirmed. St. Paul &: P.P,. llwt,hem pac. R. Co., .139 U.S, 1, 11 Sup. Ot. Rep.. :889. T . · . ; ,· . . .' . tOn .day the Northern Paoific(Jompany.filedthe bill i.o:tbepJ<eaeu,t :'Cause" Jpf the.purpO&e iof finally the. rip;hts Qf the partiesr.to the lands falling within the third divisipp ,pt' ee.tion given. aQil Ln regnrq no .f;iullI adjudicatiop, decree ... 4a,IiI
80S
a large amount ofinoney and l'ealized'ftom' sales made byhhn of the landsintllu:dedwithm' dasa 3, .and' a preliminary injunction was prayed for the plirpose of restraining said Sawyer,who.was made a defendant to the bill, ahd the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company, from paying over or receiving any of the money or secudties derived from a sale of the lands to, which the rights of the respective companies were yet unsettled, until by the final decree in this causEfit shorild be determined to ,which company the the pro.. ceeds tepresentingthelands sold', in fact belonged., Nottce of theap" plicati'onfor the temporary injun<ltion: ha:ving been duly.given to the defendarits, the same was heard, and· the court granted theot<}:el' asked, ·p.ma provision appointing Edward S'awyer a ,receiver to hold tHe'secmtitiesuritil the further oruer of this court. .; , By the, present appeal it, is sought to reverse the order thus made; Fromfbe l'ecord Elu'bWittedto us, the:;following; facts at-e:clea:rly' appal'elit:The'title'to tlie ItHids falling .within the thhrl daea; in the '1,888, ·is ill dispute between tbe 'Northern Patlific andSWPliul; Miimeapolis & Manitoba' Cdmpanies,an'4 befinll.ll.y settled''1luH1 after a full by i l1he' bill b(ll"eiD"fHe'd.The money and 'seourities' in' tbe hahds dMetidaPlt Sawy,el""were of 'ali betW'ee;t1the oompanies thtU staildLfor represent the.lailds by the sale of w hloh and't6'be'paid'over to the company ultimatillydooreed:'tGt!be4110 r owne'i' thEl'i'e6'fl:,r; It is the purpose of the;preseljt:'billto>obtail1: cree; ,tHe' former proceedings between parties ha1'ing failed, to QdOOW," 'i' , r , · , . . . , ,of,: , "1he 'cifctiitcourt heldthat, 'tinder 'the' Circnmst,a,ncesthus clear; the'interest8ohll would be 'advaneedbycontirming the oohtrol,(}f the money"an,d! securities'realized from the lands whl3tetheparties, by,theit own.ltgreement,· had previously placed the 'same',and to that entI granted )lestraining the defen'dant,JSawyer ,from paying. over the inoney: ;securities until it was fipillly 'deteiluined' towfubm .the same belonged; and for the purpose of[urtheqlrotectihg the'fdd for mon lieneHi of the litigants, the court inoluded in that 'cmler iotil appblntingEdward Sawyer a receiver of the'prdperty, with ther0" thafhe give bond for the faithftl1 pi3rfotmance'of,his' duties. , We :rail td se,ethat'exception can ,be justly tilikento the'Qetion'IOf!the circuiUloutt1ittgtantingthe order appealed from. Qnthe'contrary, twe are of'tHeopifiion that, upon'!the 'facts disclosed in the'reCOTd, itVVlls tha duty oPthe court below to grant the for.·,·' ' Counsel for appellant has discussed atlength thetlltimate question necJss9ity. i to 'be' decided! upon the fin'al: hearing', to..wi.t l to which iodInp,anydd queation includes the constructiOn to be'pJa(jed'tipop the se"vemlacts'of wMcl'l the partie!fclaimj tdt,he, of. and hke.matters. ·t)e expected that .'l1,pon It'nearlfig either' th'ecircult MU1't,' ortlliscoui't
COURTNEY t1. PRESIDENT, ETC., OF INSURANCE CO.
309,
upon appeal, will enter upon a.£o11 hearing of the questions upon which, the ultimate rights of the op:p,osing parties may be dependent. If it ap. the title to the land or property is in pears from tbe showing made dispute, and that the complainant is in good faith seeking to settle such dispute, that is as far as it is necessary for the court to inquire, so far 8S, that particulll.r point is involved, when asked to issue an injunction one issued in the present proceeding; and therefore we do such ali! not enter upon a consideration of the questions which were so fully presented In argument of couOflel,but which more properly belong to the · final hearing of the cause uplin the merits. Finding no error in, the Ql;der appealed from, the appeal is dismissed at cost ofllppellan.t.
CJoURTNEY
al. .t1. AMERICA
m.,
OJ'
.,
i;
."'.
COURT >' ' , "., , ' ",.' 1,I,; ,: ;Qua QiU,j;o, decree Of eale w8ll:;$ndeJ:"ed,in ;the:oi1'lll1it, the crelil:ttou ,oftp.e of I'PP!la18. , Aftj1rtb,e of that, court '8 decree WIlS entered Oil 'a c1'088-bi11 setting tip a mecl:1anlc's 'Uen 'On the premo' . ise,.lfeld", Appeal-to tl1tl olrcuitCOtInQf appeals :frolD'thlt lattfb . deere!!, though not froID, the . . , , ' " t. s.om-A'MouNT INCoiq'-rli:ovaBsl'.·· :. . '.' ". ; ; , When the circuit cCiiUrt obt'ltiJiil,jurisdiotion of a suit to foreolose a :iil-; by; of dive,se,#,tizenship" it 46f, terini,ne the'p'tlority 'of all lieils upon .the 'premf8es set up bY' eross-blll, regll:i'dl1l81 .of the am'ouift8claim6dj: and, 81 the jarisdlotion of the circuit court of ;appeala is· not to an, dt Wa" entertai"'"al/. appeal from a <1.eeree of court on such a cros,s-bUl.refl1sinil' to recognize a lien for leIS than $2,000; ,. , . 1.
.8.
COIl1"(>, :et. Neb. o. 54, §, 8. Pllov!lles that on:(l.lil/.g the ie's lien the same 11:8 a Ulln "foli' two year8 fr()m tbe cornmeticeJPeut()t" the· labor or ·the 'furlIlshmg'suchmaterials;" Held, tbat"the word "COmD1en'c&' .ql,ll/-lill.e8b,oth "labor'tl!ond and the dates from the of tbe fl.rst dehvery· , Asaga.iDst.tbe owner of the bUH.ding ,8sweI lasarnortgag,eetbereof W.horecelv,e,d, ',' hi8 mortgage before tbeend Of the four, month8 allQwed for filing the account,the material-man'8 lien attaches date of the fir8t delivery, altbough the account and afIldavit do not.',shriwsuch date, and only contain tbe date when thfi. became due, which W,81 after tile last dellv,ery of ;m,ar-eriaL ' , ,
... BAMIIl-ACQOtrNT AND AFFIDA'nT;
Appeal frotn the Circuit C8tirt of the United State!! fOf the District 61. 'Reversed.' , ' '. ' , ' " !,; CarrollS. J!mitgomery, Eugene MontgO'TMry,and Mdnt{}.lrmery, charlton &:. Hall, forappellnntS. , ,'" " .', " .' · ,., " " : Jdh1l0. Wharton and William Baird, for appelleeB. ..," TBefore OALD'YELL" Circuit Judge, and 'S'HIR,AS and, '1'RAYicR, '1)jstrict . ...udges. " '" , '., ,St#iIJ,District,Jtidge.Orithe 25,th 1889.< :pllees"filed a'1)illiri' equity in the circuit court 'forthedlstdettil"