Source: https://openjurist.org/10/f1d/884
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:07:52+00:00

Document:
In this point of view, the collection not being dutiable, the United States would not be legally defrauded, even though the means which the claimant used to change the status of his collection by exporting them to Canada was circuitous, and would have been blamable if the United States would have been legally injured thereby. Under the act of 1874 no forfeiture can be enforced except upon an actual intent to defraud the United States. Hence, unless· the acts complained of involved a loss of duties to which the goverment was enti· tIed, there could be no legal injury to the United States, and hence no actual intent to defraud them. The claimant and his agent had from the first protested against the claim that this collection of antiquities was dutiable, and, as I hold that it was not dutiable, a verdict must be directed for the claimant.
GREENWALT v. TUCKER and others.(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. Missouri.
A new trial may be granted at the instance of a defendant against whom judgment has been rendered in a case tried upon an agreed statement of facts, upon proof of evidence having been brought to his knowledge after the trial, which he could not have previously discovered by the use of due diligence, showing the perpetration by the plaintiff of a fraud on the jurisdiction of the court.
The transfer by a blank deed mala fide, without consideration, of the title to land in one state to a citizen of another, for the purpose of bringing suit in a federal court, will not enable the grantee to maintain a suit in e;ectment in such court.
Motion for a New Trial. Monk ci: Monk, for plaintiff. Charles Gibson, for defendants. TREAT, D. J. This is an action of ejectment against three defendants, charging them with being in possession of the premises. There was a joint answer, in which there was no denial of the joint possession as averred; and hence the suggestion that the judgment for damages against all the defendants was erroneous, has no foundation in law or in the pleadings or in the facts agreed.
""Reported by B. F. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis lJar.
.. Nor shall any circuit or district court have cognizance of any suit founded on contract in favor of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court, to recover thereon, if no assignment had been marle, except in cases of promissory nole:;, negotiable by the law merchant, and bills of exchange."
the, of, giving juriSiliction to any of the courts of the United States, and thereby to harass the occupants thereof, shall be and the same convey,ance is hereby declared inoperative," etc.
(1) That since the trial new testimony has been discovered, which by due diligence could not have been previously obtained. (2) 'fhat the prima facie showing of the defendants is to the effect that a fraud on the jurisdiction of this court has been practiced. No court with jealous regard to its duties will permit itself to be an instrument of fraud.
ties due opportunity to be heard. On the present motion the court must act from the evidenctJ before it, which, u true, l:lhow.s 1Io fraudulent judgment. Motion sustained. MoCJURY, C. J., concurs.
COUNTY INDEBTEDNEBS- WHEN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEaINS TO RUN.
Where a county may be sued on its ordinar,v warrants and compelled by mandamus to levy a tax to pay them, the statute of limitations begins to run against such warrants from the date of their issue.
The plaintiffs' cause of action is ordinary county warrants, in the form prescribed by statute, issued before the thirtieth day of October, 1874, and presented to the county treasurer for payment, and by him indorsed "not paid for want of funds," more than five years before the commencement of this suit. The statute of limitations of this state declares that "actions on promissory notes and other instruments in writing," and all actions not specifically named in the act, shall be barred in five years after the cause of action accrued. Gantt's Digest, §§ 4125, 4129. The county pleaded the statute of limitations in bar of the action. The plaintiffs demurred to the plea. Clark &: Williams, for plaintiffs. John Fletcher, for defendant. CALDWELL, D. J. It is well settled that counties may plead the statute of limitations to actions founded on contracts and unliquidated demands. Dillon, Mun. Corp. § 533; Baker v. Johnson Co. 33 Iowa, 151. Such a plea may be interposed by a city to an action upon its notes. De Cordova v. Galveston, 4 Tex. 470. And in Louisiana it is held to be a good plea to an action on warrants issued by the police jury of the parish, which are analogous to, if not identical with, our county warrants. Perry v. Parish of Vermilion, 21 La. Ann. 645. And the statute begins to run against interest coupons attached to negotiable bonds, issued by municipal corporations, from the time they mature, although they remain attached to the bond which represents the principal debt. Amy v. Dubuque, 95 U. S. 470.

References: v. 
 § 533
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.