ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO. V. HICKS.
531
SANBORN, Circuit Judge. T'his was an action by A. F. Miles, administrator of the estate of James W. Brown,' deceased, the defendant in error, to recover damages from the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company and its receivers, the plaintiffs in error, for in· juries to the deceased, which he alleged were caused by the negligence of the company. The facts out of which the case arose, and the theory of the law upon which it was tried, were the same as in No. 581,-Railway Co. v. Bennett (just decided by this court) 69 Fed. 525. The judgment below must be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial, for the reasons stated in the opinion in that case. ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO. et al. v. HICKS. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. September 2, 1895.) No. 584. RAILROAD COlIPANIES-LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE-INJURIES TO TRACK. PERSONS ON
In Error to the Circuit Caurt of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas. B. R. Davidson (Edward D. Kenna, on the brief), for plaintiffs in error. Oscar L. Miles, for defendant in error. Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges. SANBORN, Circuit Judge. This was an action by Harrison Hicks, administrator of the estate of William Spoon, deceased, defendant in error, to recover damages from the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company and its receivers, the plaintiffs in error, far injuries to the deceased, which he alleged were caused by the negligence of the company. The essential facts in this case, and the theory of the law upon which the case was tried are the same as in No. 581,Railway Co. v. Bennett (just decided by this court) 69 Fed. 525. For the reasons stated in that opinion the judgment below must be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial, and it is so ordered. ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO. et al. v. HICKS. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. No. 585. september 2, 1895.) PERSONS ON
RAJI,ROAD COMPANIES-LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE-INJURIES TO TRACK.
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas. B. R. Davidson (Edward D. Kenna, on the brief), for plaintiffs in error. Oscar L. Miles, for defendant in error. Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges.
532
FEDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 69.
SANBORN, Circuit.Judge. This was an action brought by Harri· son Hicks, administrator of the estate of William Spoon, deceased, the defendant in error, to recover damages from the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Oompany and its receivers, the plaintiffs in error, for the death of the deceased, which he alleged. was caused by the negligence of the company. The essential facts in this case, and the theory of the law upon which the case was tried, were the same as in No. 581,-Railway 00. v. Bennett (just decided by this court) 69 Fed. 525. For the reasons stated in the opinion in that case the judgment below must be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial, and it is so ordered.
LINN COUNTY NAT. BANK
v. CItA WFORD.
(Cir-cuit Court, D. Oregon. No. 2,108.
July 31, 1895.)
1.
JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS-AcTIONS BY NATIONAL BANK RECEIVERS.
The federnl comts have jmisdiction of actions br-ought by the receiver of an insolvent national bank to r-ealize its assets, irrespective of the citizenship of the parties; and it is immaterial to such jmisdiction wheth.er- the action is brought in the receiver's own name, as r-eceiver, orby him in the of the bank.
2. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS-AcCOMMODATION NOTES.
A stockholder and dir-ector- in a national bank, being aged and infir-m of sight, was requested by the pr-esident of the bank to give him an accommodation note for $10,000. He replied that if thepmpose was to draw money on the note or- put it in the bank he would not give It. The pr-esident then stated that the note was merely to be put into the hands of his personal creditor as security, and that no money would be needed. A note was accordingly made, bUlt, without the knowledge of the maker, it was payable to the bank, and was, in fact, placed in the bank, and a certificate of deposit for the amount issued to ilie president, and by him deposired with his cr-editor, who held it as security until the bank failed. Held, that the maker-'s stipulation that the note should not be used to take money from the bank was appar-ently made for the bank's benefit, and that, having given a valid accommodatioll note, he was liable ther-eon to the receiver of the bank, although his wishes in regard to the manner of its use had not been respected.
was an action brought by the receiver of the Linn County Na.tional Bank, in the name of the bank, against John A. Orawford u'pon a note for the sum of $10,000. Heard on a motion by defendant for a new trial. Wirt Minor, for plaintiff. J. W. Whalley, for defendant. BELLINGER, District Judge. This is a motion for a new trial upon the grounds: (1) That the court is without jurisdiction; (2) error of the court in refusing to instruct the jury to the effect that, if they believed the statements of the defendant Orawford as to the circumstances under which the note sued on was given, their wrdict must be for the defendant. The action is one by the l"eceiver of the bank, in the bank's cor-