Decisions announced without Opinions.

March 6, 1899. Mr. Joseph H. Choate, Mr. Arthur v. Briesen and Mr. Antonio Knauth for petitioner. Mr. Edmund Wetmore and Mr. Charles G. Coe opposing.

No. 719. STATE BANK OF AMBIA V. CHICAGO TITLE AND TRUST COMPANY. Seventh Circuit. Denied March 13, 1899. Mr. Daniel Fraser and Mr. Otto Gresham for petitioner. Mr. Samuel O. Pickens and Mr. Smiley N. Chambers opposing.

No. 270. GRATZ V. LAND AND RIVER IMPROVEMENT COMPANY. Seventh Circuit. Denied April 11, 1899. Mr. Henry S. Wilcox for petitioner. Mr. John C. Spooner, Mr. A. L. Sanborn and Mr. Maxwell Evarts opposing.

No. 730. MEXICAN CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY v. MARFifth Circuit. Denied April 11, 1899. Mr. A. T. Britton and Mr. A. B. Browne for petitioner.

SHALL.

No. 754. CHAPMAN v. YELLOW POPLAR LUMBER COMPANY. Fourth Circuit. Denied April 17, 1899. Mr. J. F. Bullitt and Mr. R. A. Ayers for petitioner. Mr. John N. Baldwin opposing.

No. 717. GLAW v. PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY. Sixth Circuit. Denied April 17, 1899. Mr. Charles Dick and Mr. Frederick C. Bryan for petitioner. Mr. William B. Sanders opposing

No. 748. SCAIFE v. WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA LAND COMPANY. Fourth Circuit. Denied April 17, 1899. Mr. A. C. Avery for petitioner.

VOL. CLXXIII-45

In Memoriam.

BARON HERSCHELL, D.C.L., LL.D.

On the coming in of the court on March 1, 1899, the Chief Justice said:

It is with sincere sorrow that I announce to the members of the bar the sudden death of Baron Herschell, former Lord Chancellor of England, information of which has just been received by the court with deep sensibility.

Lord Herschell had been some months in this country in a pub lic and international capacity, and but a few days have elapsed since he sat with us here, a compliment which has been extended only once previously in the instance of the then Lord Chief Justice of England.

In view of the cordial relations between Lord Herschell and the members of this court, his great distinction in our common profession and on the bench, and his unexpected death while absent from home in the discharge of high public duty, we feel called upon to take notice of this sad event, and as a mark of respect to his memory the court will adjourn until to-morrow at the usual hour.

In Memoriam.

STEPHEN JOHNSON FIELD, LL.D.

Mr. Justice Field was born on the 4th of November, 1816. On the 10th of March, 1863, he was commissioned as a Justice of this court. Having resigned, he ceased to be a member of the court on the first day of December, 1897. He died on Sunday the 9th of April, 1899. On the coming in of the court on Monday morning, the 10th, the Chief Justice said:

It becomes my sad duty to inform the gentlemen of the bar that Mr. Justice Field on yesterday (Sunday) evening passed peacefully from this life. He died full of years and of honors, and attended by all that should accompany old age.

The judicial career of Mr. Justice Field was unexampled in length and distinction, and he occupied a seat upon this bench for a longer period than any of its members from the beginning. His labors left no region of jurisprudence unexplored, and now that he rests from them, his works will follow him. His retirement when he saw port approaching was so recent that he hardly seems to have been absent, and his death comes home to us the more keenly.

As a mark of respect to his memory, the court will adjourn until to-morrow.

On the morning of Thursday, the 13th of April, the funeral services took place at the church of the Epiphany in Washington, at half-past ten o'clock.

INDEX.

ABATEMENT.

1. An action, pending in the Circuit Court of the United States sitting
in Ohio, brought by an injured person as plaintiff, to recover damages
for injuries sustained by the negligence of the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Company in operating its road in Indiana, does not finally
abate upon the death of the plaintiff before trial and judgment, but
may be revived and prosecuted to judgment by his executor or ad-
ministrator, duly appointed by the proper court in Ohio. Baltimore
& Ohio Railroad Co. v. Joy, 226.

2. A right given by a statute of a State to revive a pending action for
personal injuries in the name of the personal representative of a de-
ceased plaintiff is not lost upon the removal of the case into a
Federal court. Ib.

8. Whether a pending action may be revived in a Federal court upon
the death of either party, and proceed to judgment, depends pri-
marily upon the laws of the jurisdiction in which the action was
commenced, and in the present case is not affected in any degree by
the fact that the deceased received his injuries in Indiana. Ib.

ADMIRALTY.

1. Undoubtedly there was jurisdiction in admiralty in this case, in the
courts below. Smith v. Burnett, 430.

2. Although a wharfinger does not guarantee the safety of vessels com-
ing to his wharves, he is bound to exercise reasonable diligence in
ascertaining the conditions of the berths thereat, and, if there is any
dangerous obstruction, to remove it, or to give due notice of its exist-
ence to vessels about to use the berths; at the same time the mas-
ter is bound to use ordinary care, and cannot carelessly run into
danger. Ib.

3. This court is unable to decide that the Court of Appeals of the Dis-
trict of Columbia was not justified in holding, on the evidence, that
appellants were liable for negligence and want of reasonable care,
and that the master was free from contributory negligence, and
therefore affirms the decree of the Court of Appeals which agreed
with the trial court on the facts. Ib.

4. The Golden Rule, a Canadian topsail schooner with twelve sails, all

709