ties to action except by trustee, be enjoined from setting up their claim under mortgage; Am. Press Assn. v. Daily Story Pub. Co., 120 Fed. 770, holding owner of copyrighted production does not lose exclusive property because a licensee omitted to print therewith the usual copyright notice; Terre Haute & L. Ry. Co. v. Harrison, 96 Fed. 910, holding rule of caveat emptor as applied to judicial sale deprives purchaser under foreclosure of any recourse against proceeds on account of existing liens, and also from certain funds in registry of court; English v. Otis, 125 Iowa, 560, 101 N. W. 295, purchasers of property at exccution sale are not purchasers in good faith within Code, § 3797; Trigg v. Jones, Admr., 102 Ky. 50, 42 S. W. 849, holding court will relieve purchaser at judicial sale from deception by court or its agent in reference to amount of land sold; Rocksell v. Allen, 3 McLean, 357, Fed. Cas. 11,983, applying rule to sale of land on execution by sheriff; Searey v. M'Chord, 1 Fed. 262, setting aside sale by assignee in bankruptcy, where purchaser innocently misled by advertised notice of sale; Fidelity Ins. etc. Co. v. Roanoke Iron Co., 84 Fed. 746, holding purchaser under decree for sale cannot, after completion, claim discharge of unpaid taxes out of purchase money; Perkins v. Winter, 7 Ala. 868, on sale by commissioners under order of court, purchaser not entitled to indemnity for encumbrance after order passed to make deed; Branham v. M. & C. C. of San Jose, 24 Cal. 607, holding naked purchaser at judicial sale, under foreclosure decree, not entitled to have sale set aside as void, because he acquired no title; Worthy v. Johnson, 8 Ga. 240, 52 Am. Dec. 402, applying rule to public sales, under authority of law, by executors and guardians, who cannot bind the estate by covenants respecting the property sold; McWhorter v. Beavers, 8 Ga. 302, holding that on sale by sheriff there is no implied warranty; England v. Clark, 4 Scam. 490, holding that there was no remedy at law to relieve purchaser at judicial sale where title failed; Brown v. Wallace, 4 Gill & J. 492, 2 Bland, 599, holding that court in no case undertook to sell anything more than the title of the parties to the suit; Johnson v. Laybourn, 56 Minn. 333, 57 N. W. 933, holding sale by assignee in insolvency was sale by officer of law; Stephens v. Ells, 65 Mo. 460, holding sale in partition does not import any warranty of title whether purchaser be stranger or party interested; Frasher v. Ingham, 4 Neb. 535, but holding rule did not apply where, on sale by sheriff under levy, it subsequently appeared the levy had been made on wrong lands; Ellis v. Adderton, 88 N. C. 477, holding that purchaser having notice of defects in title and that only the interest of intestate would be sold, was bound by his purchase; Westfall v. Dungan, 14 Ohio St. 281, holding purchaser, after completion, could not be relieved against false and fraudulent representations made by executors at time of sale; Freeman v. Caldwell, 10 Watts, 10, holding that rule is applicable as well to sales of personalty as realty, and that purchaser at sheriff's sale, whose title is subsequently defeated by replevin, has no recourse; Lynch v. Baxter, 4 Tex. 437, 51 Am. Dec. 736, holding that bond for warranty of title given by an administrator on a sale could not bind his intestate's estate; Stearns v. Edson, 63 Vt. 263, 25 Am. St. Rep. 760, holding that on sale under execution of mortgaged realty, purchaser not excused from completion, because before deed from sheriff mortgage had been foreclosed; Saunders v. Pate, 4 Rand. 13, holding sheriff selling under execution in good faith incurred no responsibility as to title; Young v. McClung, 9 Gratt. 359, holding it duty of purchaser at judicial sale to see that all interested parties are concluded by decree. Limited in Trigg v. Jones, 42 S. W. 850, holding that rescission will be accorded purchaser who is deceived by action of court or misrepresentations of its agents. Distinguished in Lambert's Point Towboat Co. v. United States, 182 Fed. 391, 104 C. C. A. 598, Court of Admiralty which has ordered sale of libeled ship by marshal at auction cannot accept in open court, or authorize marshal to accept, a private bid; Stonerook v. Wisner, 171 Iowa, 112, L. R. A. 1915E, 839, 153 N. W. 352, holding rule did not apply to sale by guardian under order of court, where property was subject to undisclosed easement. Rights of purchaser under execution getting no title. Note, 14 Am. Implied warranty of title in sales of chattels. Note, 62 Am. Dec. 466. An auctioneer has no authority to give a warranty unless specially instructed. Approved in Bice v. Siver, 170 Iowa, 260, 152 N. W. 500, following rule; Upton v. Suffolk County Mills, 11 Cush. 589, 59 Am. Dec. 164, holding sale by general agent of flour, with unauthorized warranty to keep sweet during sea voyage, not binding on principals; Blood v. French, 9 Gray, 199, where auctioneer, acting as agent for administrator, stated hay was good, held not binding warranty. Law of auction sales. Note, 131 Am. St. Rep. 483. Power of auctioneer to warrant property sold by him. Note, Ann. Equitable relief will not be given in cases of executed contract of sale where maxim of caveat emptor applies. Distinguished in Rockwell v. Allen, 3 McLean, 357, Fed. Cas. 11,983, showing that equity would relieve against completion of a contract where no interest would pass to the purchaser; Boykin v. Cook, 61 Ala. 478, holding purchaser will not be bound by absolutely void sale. See Frasher v. Ingham, 4 Neb. 535, an instance of sale where purchaser relieved in cquity. When purchaser at execution or judicial sale may obtain release from his bid. Note, 70 Am. Dec. 573. Purchaser, after confirmation, cannot obtain relief on ground that title was imperfect or encumbered. Note, 52 Am. St. Rep. 177. Miscellaneous. Cited in Le Roy v. Beard, 8 How. 468, 12 L. Ed. 1160, discussing powers of agents to give covenants of seisin; Turner v. Thrower, 5 Port. 53, on marshal exceeding his powers not binding anyone but himself; Frost v. Render, 65 Ga. 20, as having been cited by defendant in error, but to what point not stated. 9 Wheat. 650, 6 L. Ed. 182, McIVER v. WATTLES. Costs are not allowed in any case dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Approved in United States Envelope Co. v. Transo Paper Co., 229 Fed. 579, and Bice v. Boothsville Telephone Co., 62 W. Va. 522, 125 Am. St. Rep. 986, 59 S. E. 502, both following rule; Pillett v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 105 Fed. 195, holding under judiciary act of March 3, 1875 (§ 5), which provides that when Circuit Court remands case it shall make an order in reference to costs, such court has jurisdiction to award statutory costs and docket fee, although cause was remanded because court had no jurisdiction; State v. Lambert, 52 W. Va. 251, 43 S. E. 178, holding when court has no jurisdiction costs cannot be allowed; Hornthall v. The Collector, 9 Wall. 567, 19 L. Ed. 562, noting exception where defendant in lower court was also defendant in Supreme Court; Burnham v. Rangeley, 2 Wood. & M. 420, 421, 423, Fed. Cas. 2177, to Circuit Court costs where cause dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over person; Mead v. Platt, 21 Blatchf. 436, 17 Fed. 836, where appeal was from disallowance of claim by District Court in bankruptcy; Pentlarge v. Kirby, 22 Blatchf. 261, 20 Fed. 898, holding rule not changed by Revised Statutes, sections 823, 914, 983, Revised Statutes, United States; Abbey v. The R. L. Stevens, 1 Fed. Cas. 12, where appeal in admiralty dismissed for want of jurisdiction without costs; Thurston County v. Scammell, 7 Wash. 95, 34 Pac. 471, extending rule to action dismissed on account of repeal of statute on which it was founded. Qualified in M. C. & L. M. Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 387, 28 L. Ed. 465, 4 Sup. Ct. 514, allowing costs against plaintiff in error who had wrongfully removed a cause from State court; Bradstreet Co. v. Higgins, 114 U. S. 263, 29 L. Ed. 176, 5 Sup. Ct. 880, allowing costs of printing record to enable defendant to move to dismiss plaintiff, having failed in his duty. See Rule 10, sections 2 and 7. Denied as to Missouri State courts in State v. Thompson, 81 Mo. 167, holding that a contrary rule had been established as to costs improvidently incurred; Bitz v. Meyer, 40 N. J. L. 256, 29 Am. Rep. 236, holding that when issue of fact must be passed on by court, to reach conclusion that it had no jurisdiction, costs might be awarded. Power of appellate court to award costs on dismissal of appeal for want of jurisdiction. Note, 13 Ann. Cas. 1048. Miscellaneous. Cited erroneously in Wallace v. Fairman, 4 Watts, 379. 9 Wheat. 651-658, 6 L. Ed. 182, WALTON v. UNITED STATES. Public officer of United States is not entitled to notice, requiring him to render account of public moneys received and not accounted for. Approved in Smythe v. United States, 188 U. S. 173, 47 L. Ed. 431, 23 Sup. Ct. 284, holding under United States Comp. Stats. 1901, pp. 695, 698, amount of treasury notes charred by fire cannot be credited as setoff on suit on bond of superintendent of mint unless claim was first presented to accounting officer of treasury; Watkins v. United States, 9 Wall. 763, 19 L. Ed. 822, in action upon a marshal's official bond; United States v. Lent, 1 Paine, 422, Fed. Cas. 15,593, holding that statutory requirement of submission of agent's accounts to the treasury did not preclude settlement of the account in court of justice. Treasury transcript as evidence and conclusiveness thereof. Cited in United States v. Eggleston, 4 Sawy. 201, Fed. Cas. 15,027, holding that by Revised Statutes, section 886, transcript was made prima facie evidence; United States v. Patterson, 91 Fed. 855, holding credit claimed by Federal officer for errors by his bookkeeper, might not be pleaded, unless presented to, and disallowed by, treasury department. Receiver of public moneys is individually responsible for all moneys received in his public capacity. Cited in United States v. Wade, 75 Fed. 266, holding allowance of credit to an officer for money properly paid by him to superior officer, no discharge to latter on his failure to account to government. Official bond is collateral security for faithful performance of official duties and does not discharge officer of individual responsibility. Approved in Gallatin County v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 50 Mont. 61, 144 Pac. 1086, holding action on official bond of county treas. urer was on liability created by statute, and not on instrument in writing; City of Butte v. Goodwin, 47 Mont. 167, Ann Cas. 1914C, 1012, 134 Pac. 672, holding action to recover interest from city treasurer was for breach of implied promise and not on bond, which was collateral security; Mason v. Fractional School District, 34 Mich. 231, in action by school district for moneys had and received; Cole Co. v. Dallmeyer, 101 Mo. 65, 13 S. W. 688, holding county could have recourse on bond of treasurer, and also sue him in assumpsit and claim might be allowed against his estate in probate; State v. Blake, 2 Ohio St. 149, holding obligation could exist no longer than the liability it was intended to secure; Spokane County v. Prescott, 19 Wash. 421, 67 Am. St. Rep. 736, 53 Pac. 662, arguing that II-8 action against official bondsmen not an action on written contract within statute of limitations. Bill of exceptions is not valid unless for matter excepted to at trial. Cited in Railway Co. v. Heck, 102 U. S. 120, 26 L. Ed. 59, following rule; New Orleans & N. E. R. R. Co. v. Jopes, 142 U. S. 22, 35 L. Ed. 922, 12 Sup. Ct. 110, holding that bill of exceptions will be presumed to state only things occurring at trial, unless from its language contrary is disclosed; Nicoll v. American Ins. Co., 3 Wood. & M. 537, Fed. Cas. 10,259, following rule; Johnson v. Garber, 73 Fed. 525, 43 U. S. App. 107, applying rule even when there was practice, prevailing in trial court, but not embodied in rule of permitting exceptions to be taken after close of trial; Frank v. State, 40 Ala. 18, where entire evidence is set out, there is no exception for consideration where none is shown to have been made in trial court; Allen v. Smith, 12 N. J. L. 168, rejecting exceptions not made at trial; Garretson v. Appleton, 58 N. J. L. 392, 37 Atl. 152, applying rule where an instruction asked was refused and exception taken; Kearney v. Snodgrass, 12 Or. 312, 7 Pac. 310, holding no exception can be taken to an order on motion for a new trial. Distinguished in Merchants' Exchange Bank v. McGraw, 76 Fed. 936, 48 U. S. App. 66, where exceptions were to further instructions given by court to jury after they had retired and returned for purpose, and in absence of counsel. Bill of exceptions must state that exception was taken to court's ruling. Cited in United States v. Jarvis, 3 Wood. & M. 225, Fed. Cas. 15,469, holding objections must be persisted in as exceptions; Croft v. Ferrell, 21 Ala. 357, holding that no ruling will be considered as excepted to unless so specifically stated; Lenox v. Pike, 2 Ark. 22, holding the exception must appear to have been taken and signed at the trial; Evans v. Fisher, 5 Gilm. 456, McKown v. Powers, 86 Me. 294, 29 Atl. 1080, and Patterson v. Phillips, 1 How. (Miss.) 573, all to same effect; Law v. Merrill, 6 Wend. 278, where bill showed on its face that it was not taken until after decision of court on application for new trial. Distinguished in Baltimore Build. Assn. v. Grant, 41 Md. 564, 566, as not applicable where it appeared from the certificate that the exceptions were in fact taken pending the trial. It is sufficient if exceptions are taken at trial and noted by court, and afterward, during term, reduced to form and signed by judge, nunc pro tunc. Approved in Montana Min. Co. v. St. Louis etc. Co., 147 Fed. 908, where judge, after instructing jury but before sending them out, retired to chambers with counsel and there heard and allowed exceptions, he need not afterward allow further exceptions; Lengelsen v. McGregor, 162 Ind. 268, 70 N. E. 249, bill of exceptions not signed until after term nor within time fixed by court, not considered on appeal, though failure to sign in |