4. In an action of tort, in a Court of the
United States, where the defendant
suffers a default, the plaintiff has no
constitutional right to have the dam-
ages assessed by a jury. Raymond
v. Danbury & Norwalk R. R. Co., 133

5. Such assessment is a matter of prac-
tice, and may be made according to
the practice of the Courts of the State
in which the Federal Court is held.
id.

6. In Connecticut, such assessment may
be made by the Court.
id.

7. In a suit in equity on a patent, a
preliminary injunction was granted,
on notice and without opposition.
Afterwards a decree pro confesso was
entered, and a reference ordered,
which was commenced, and witnesses
were examined, and the defendants
produced their accounts and attended
by counsel. Afterwards they moved
to set aside the decree and for leave
to file an answer, alleging matters
which had been set up in a prior suit
on the patent and overruled by the
Court, and sundry new matters. No
mistake or misapprehension or neg-
lect of counsel was alleged. The
plaintiffs offered to limit their re-
covery to $500, which would be less
than the expense to the defendants of
trying the issues. The defendants
had ceased to use the patented in-
vention: Held, that the motion must
be denied, on the plaintiffs stipulat-
ing to limit their recovery to $500.
Andrews v. Denslow,
182

8. An order of reference, made on con-
sent, in an action at law, provided
that the cause be referred to H. to
hear and determine all the issues
thereof, and that the report of the
referee have the same effect as a
judgment of the Court, and that, on
filing such report with the clerk of
the Court, judgment be entered in
conformity therewith, "the same as
if the cause had been tried before
the Court." On the report, judgment
was entered for the defendant, for
costs. The plaintiff moved for a stay
of proceedings, under § 987 of the
Revised Statutes, with a view of ap
plying to the Court to grant a new
trial: Held, that the Court had no

17. An unincorporated association of
persons was sued as "The Albany
and Canal Line." It waived process,
and appeared by that name, and an-
swered without objecting that it was
improperly sued: Held, that it could
not afterwards raise such objection.
Deems v. The Albany & Canal Line,
474

See ADMIRALTY.
APPEAL, 2.
BANKRUPTCY, 1.
COLLISION, 14.
CRIMINAL PRACTICE.
EQUITY, 1 to 7.
EVIDENCE, 7.
FIRE INSURANCE, 8.
JUDGMENT.
JURISDICTION.
NEW TRIAL.
PLEADING.
PROBABLE CAUSE.
TRADE-MARK, 6.
TROVER, 1.

PRISONER.

See CRIMINAL PRACTICE, 5, 6.

PROBABLE CAUSE.

1. A judgment having been entered
against a defendant, as a collector of
customs, in a "charges and commis-
sions" case, for duties overpaid, un-
der protest, which duties had been
paid into the Treasury by the defend.
ant, and such judgment not having |

2. N. sued an endorser of the note in a
State Court, and was defeated, on
the ground that the law, as held by
the State Court, was, that N., having
taken the note as security for a pre-
cedent debt, took it subject to the
equities between the prior parties.
Afterwards N. sued the maker on the
same note: Held, that the judgment
in the suit against the endorser was
not a bar in favor of the maker. id.

R

RAILROAD.

See CARRIER, 1.
FERRY, 1.

RECEIVER.

See TROVER, 1.

REMOVAL OF CAUSES.

1. The plaintiff in a suit in equity in a
State Court presented to that Court,
on the 4th of February, 1876, a peti-
tion for its removal to this Court, un-
der the Act of March 3d, 1875, (18
U. S. Stat. at Large, 470,) with the
proper bond.
The session of this 5.
Court next after the 4th of February
began, by law, on the last Monday of
February. The plaintiff did not file
in this Court a copy of the record
until the first day of the ensuing
April term of this Court: Held, that
the suit must be remanded to the
State Court, with costs, as not re-
moved to this Court according to
law. Bright v. Milwaukee & St. Paul
R. R. Co.,

214

2. A suit was brought in a State Court,
in August, 1875, and proceedings for
its removal into this Court were
taken, under subdivision 3 of $ 639
of the Revised Statutes. The bond
given was such a bond as is provided
for by $639, and not such a bond as
is provided for by § 3 of the Act of
March 3d, 1875, (18 U. S. Stat. at
Large, 470.) It contained no pro-

vision for costs: Held, that the suit
was not properly removed. Torrey
v. Grant Locomotive Works,

269

3. Under § 3 of the Act of March 3d,
1875, (18 U. S. Stat. at Large, 470,)
a civil suit brought in a State Court,
where the matter in dispute exceeds,
exclusive of costs, $500, and in which
there is a controversy between citi-
zens of different States, may be re-
moved into the Circuit Court of the
United States, even though the case
is not one arising under the Consti-
tution, laws or treaties of the United
States. Low v. Wayne Co. Savings
Bank,

449

4. Where the defendant removed a suit
into this Court, under § 2 of the Act
of March 3d, 1875, (18 U. S. Stat. at
Large, 470,) on the ground that the

See COSTS.

REPEAL.

See FORFEITURE.
REVIEW.

See BANKRUPTCY, 1.

S

SHIP-OWNER.

See COLLISION, 3 to 7.

STATUTE.

See ADMINISTRATOR.
FORFEITURE.

STATUTE OF LIMITATION.

See LIMITATION OF ACTION.

STATUTES CITED.

UNITED STATES.

496

58,

134, 135, 413