ANTI-TRUST ACT of July 2, 1890 (see Jurisdiction, A 2): Alexander v.
United States, 117: (see Witnesses): Hale v. Henkel, 43; Nelson v.
United States, 92.

CIVIL SERVICE ACT of January 16, 1883 (see Civil Service): United States
v. Wickersham, 390.

IMMUNITY OF WITNESSES, Act of February 25, 1903 (see Witnesses, 2):
Hale v. Henkel, 43.

JUDICIARY, Rev. Stat. § 709 (see Jurisdiction, A 10): Joy v. St. Louis, 332;
(see Jurisdiction, A 11), West Chicago Railroad v. Chicago, 506; (see
Jurisdiction, A 12): Keen v. Keen, 319. Act of March 3, 1885, 23 Stat.
443 (see Jurisdiction, A 1): New Mexico v. Atchison, Topeka & S. F.
Ry. Co., 41. Act of August 13, 1888, 25 Stat. 433 (see Jurisdiction,
C 3): Blair v. Chicago, 400. Act of March 3, 1891, sec. 7 (see Appeal
and Error, 1): Ex parte National Enameling Co., 156.

NATIONAL BANKS, Rev. Stat. § 5151 (see Jurisdiction, C 4; National
Banks, 2): Wyman v. Wallace, 230; (see National Banks, 1): Christo-
pher v. Norvell, 216.

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 691, § 10 (see Juris-
diction, A 5, 7): De la Rama v. De la Rama, 303.

REMOVAL OF CAUSES, Rev. Stat. §§ 641, 642 (see Removal of Causes):
Kentucky v. Powers, 1.

SHIPPING, Harter Act, 27 Stat. 445, § 3 (see Maritime Law): The Wildcroft,
378.

TARIFF ACT of 1897, 30 Stat. 156, 205, par. 98, § 7 (see Customs Duties):
United States v. Downing, 354.

TERRITORIAL PRACTICE ACT of April 7, 1874, 18 Stat. 27 (see Jurisdiction,
A 4): De la Rama v. De la Rama, 303.

WISCONSIN ENABLING ACT of August 6, 1846 (see Public Lands, 3): Wis-

consin v. Hitchcock, 202.

ADULTERY.

See DIVORCE.

ADVERSE POSSESSION.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 10.

ALIMONY.

See JURISDICTION, A 3, 5, 6.

AMENDMENT.

See STATUTES, A 4.

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.
See JURISDICTION, A.

ANTI-TRUST LAW.

See WITNESSES.

APPEAL AND ERROR.

1. Final or interlocutory decree-Effect of appeal under section 7 of act of
March 3, 1891.

Plaintiffs brought suit upon a single patent, in which there were twelve
claims. The Circuit Court found that three of the claims were invalid
and nine valid, of which five had been infringed, and referred it to a
master to report the amount of damages and dismissed the bill as to
the claims found invalid and not infringed. Defendants appealed
from the decree and plaintiffs also filed cross appeal assigning as errors
the rulings adverse to them. The Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed
the cross appeal. Petition for mandamus to compel that court to
take jurisdiction of the cross appeal denied and held, that the decree
was interlocutory and not final and in the Federal courts no appeal
can as a general rule be taken except from a final decree. The appeal
authorized by § 7 of the act of March 3, 1891, does not bring up the
cause as a whole; and, unless otherwise specially ordered, the case,
except for hearing of the appeal from the interlocutory order, proceeds
in the lower court as though no appeal had been taken until final judg-
ment. Cases in which a bill has been dismissed as to some of the de-
fendants and a separable controversy as to others referred to a master
for an accounting, and in which the dismissal has been treated as a
final decree, have no application to a case of joint liability, or in which
there is only a single defendant. Ex parte National Enameling Co.,
156; Ex parte Automatic Switch Co., 166.

2. Bonds; irregularities in; necessity for entry of order regarding.
Although irregularities may exist in appeal bonds, if the cases are sent
back for further proceedings no order need be entered here regarding
them. Amadeo v. Northern Assurance Co., 194.

3. Objections as to forms of writ of error-Effect of bringing in corporation
in liquidation to bring in liquidator.

Objections as to forms of writ of error not taken below will not be enter-

tained here to defeat the jurisdiction of this court-and an amend-
ment bringing in a corporation in liquidation as assignee of the party
plaintiff held, under such conditions, to bring in the liquidator also. Ib.

4. Necessary parties.

A party having no legal interest in maintaining or reversing a judgment
is not always a necessary party to writ of error or appeal, and if the
defendant has pleaded below that a party plaintiff has no interest in
the cause of action, having assigned the same, and as a result of such
plea the assignee has been substituted, the defendant cannot assert in
this court that the original plaintiff was more than a nominal party,
and the writ will not be dismissed on account of his death and failure
to give notice to his succession. Ib.

See HABEAS CORPUS, 1, 2;
JURISDICTION.

ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.

See TAXATION, 9.

ASSIGNEE.

See JURISDICTION, C 3.

BANKRUPTCY.

Title of trustee-Right of vendor of goods sold under conditional sale contract
as against bankrupt's creditors.

The trustee in bankruptcy is vested with no better right or title to the
property than the bankrupt had when the trustee's title accrued; and
where, as in the State of Ohio, a conditional sale contract is good as
between the parties themselves although not filed, the vendor of ma-
chinery, sold and delivered under such a contract and payment for
which had not been made, may remove the same as against all creditors
of the bankrupt who have not fastened upon it by some specific lien.
York Manufacturing Co. v. Cassell, 344.

Re Nielsen, 131 U. S. 176, distinguished in Felts v. Murphy, 123.

CASES FOLLOWED.

C., B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Drainage Commission, 200 U. S. 251, followed in
West Chicago Railroad v. Chicago, 506.

Cleveland v. Cleveland City Railway Co., 194 U. S. 517, followed in Cleveland
v. Cleveland Electric Ry., 529.

Ex parte National Enameling Co., 201 U. S. 156, followed in Ex parte Auto-
matic Switch Co., 166.

Falk v. Moebs, 127 U. S. 597, followed in Blair v. Chicago, 400.

Felts v. Murphy, 201 U. S. 123, followed in Valentina v. Mercer, 131.
Fritts v. Palmer, 132 U. S. 282, followed in Blair v. Chicago, 400.

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, followed in McAlister v. Henkel, 90; Nelson
v. United States, 92.

Holmes v. Goldsmith, 147 U. S. 150, followed in Blair v. Chicago, 400.
Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147, followed in Blair v. Chicago, 400.
Royal Insurance Co. v. Miller, 199 U. S. 353, followed in Amadeo v. Northern
Assurance Co., 194.

South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 U. S. 286, followed in Blair v. Chicago,
400.

United States v. Thomas, 151 U. S. 557, followed in Wisconsin v. Hitchcock,

202.

Wyman v. Wallace, 201 U. S. 230, followed in Frenzer v. Wallace, 244;
Poppleton v. Wallace, 245.

CHALLENGES.

See JURY.

CHICAGO TRACTION CASES.

Railway franchises-Contracts for use of streets-Constitutional law-Diversity
of citizenship-Jurisdiction of Federal court-Suit by receivers in sup-
port of jurisdiction-Ultra vires acts of corporations—Public grants—
Practice and procedure-Construction of statutes—Title of statute-Power
of limited corporation to receive grant inuring to benefit of successors—
Title and control of municipal corporation over streets.

Where notes are made by a corporation payable to the order of its own
treasurer, a citizen of the same State, as a matter of convenience and