persons not in the navy who rendered services in connection with capture were given salvage; Seventy-eight Bales, 1 Low. 18, Fed. Cas. 12,679, where goods, property of enemy, abandoned and picked up at sea by government cruiser, held prize of war, and therefore government property, out of which captors were entitled to salvage only; The Rita, 89 Fed. 768, holding officers and men of auxiliary cruiser not regularly enlisted in navy entitled to prize money. Mode of taking and perfecting security on appeal are matters of discretion for lower court, and Supreme Court will not interfere with its exercise. Approved in Blaffer v. New Orleans Water Supply Co., 160 Fed. 390, 393, 87 C. C. A. 341, holding that appeal, not being taken within six months allowed by law, court had no jurisdiction to hear it; Walker v. Houghtaling, 104 Fed. 514, holding where plaintiff in error has failed to file bond on writ of error, but the writ has been issued and served, and cause transferred to Circuit Court of Appeals, that court has power after time has expired to retain cause and permit filing of bond in amount prescribed, but not to act as supersedeas; Noonan v. Chester Park Athletic Club Co., 93 Fed. 577, holding allowance of appeal by trial court within six months from entry of decree is sufficient to save case from bar of statute; Anson v. Railroad Co., 23 How. 2, 16 L. Ed. 518, where court permitted appellant to give bond for costs after regular time expired; United States v. Adams, 6 Wall. 107, 18 L. Ed. 793, where held that by taking initiatory steps in time, appellant had conformed to law and rules of court, and subsequent delay in perfecting appeal did not invalidate it; Edmonson v. Bloomshire, 7 Wall. 311, 19 L. Ed. 92, holding filing bond not necessary for existence of appeal so as to start time running within which transcript must be filed; Bigler v. Waller, 12 Wall. 149, 20 L. Ed. 262, denying motion to dismiss appeal because bond defective, and granting leave to file new bond; Peugh v. Davis, 110 U. S. 228, 28 L. Ed. 128, 3 Sup. Ct. 18, holding where appeal allowed by court in session, acting judicially, without taking bond, judge of appellate court could nevertheless, after expiration of sixty days, grant a supersedeas; Wickelman v. Dick Co., 85 Fed. 851, 57 U. S. App. 199, allowing appellant time to give security on appeal notwithstanding expiration of six months from date of decree; Barnum's Appeal, 33 Conn. 127, where appeal held valid when applied for and granted within statutory time, though bond not given till later. See also Green v. Lynn, 87 Fed. 840, holding merely filing petition without obtaining order allowing appeal within time, insufficient. Distinguished in Adams v. Law, 16 How. 148, 14 L. Ed. 882, holding that where an appeal operated as a supersedeas, the law must have been strictly complied with and bond given within ten days after decree. Practice and procedure governing transfer of causes to Federal Amount of salvage is within sound discretion of the District Court, and will not ordinarily be disturbed on appeal Cited in The Schooner Emulous, 1 Sumn. 215, Fed. Cas. 4480, where appellate court, with great reluctance, reduced salvage allowed by District Court, because exorbitant. Review of salvage award. Note, 20 Ann. Cas. 564. 10 Wheat. 312-332, 6 L. Ed. 329, THE JOSEFA SEGUNDA. District Court in admiralty may determine who was captor of vessel violating slave trade and entitled to share in proceeds of vessel and cargo. Cited in United States v. George, 6 Blatchf. 46, Fed. Cas. 15,197, sustaining jurisdiction of court to decree distribution of penalties after condemnation; Robinson v. Hook, 4 Mason, 144, Fed. Cas. 11,956, in argument, sustaining jurisdiction of court to decree distribution of proceeds after condemnation therein; s. c., p. 148, Fed. Cas. 11,956, to point that such court had exclusive jurisdiction to decide who was the informer entitled to share such proceeds; Price v. Forrest, 173 U. S. 425, discussing rights of heir of a claimant to funds in court's possession. Distinguished in dissenting opinion in Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 486, 12 L. Ed. 248, arguing against jurisdiction of admiralty court in case of collision on navigable river within a county. To constitute capture so as to entitle captor to proceeds of forfeiture, there must be open, visible possession claimed and authority exercised. Cited in Fideliter v. United States, 1 Sawy. 155, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 578, Fed. Cas. 4755, denying jurisdiction and dismissing libel because no seizure alleged. Seizure voluntarily abandoned or not followed by prosecution or claim insisting upon captor's rights becomes void. Cited in. The Tug May, 6 Biss. 249, Fed. Cas. 9330, following rule; United States v. Ninety-two Barrels, 8 Blatchf. 482, Fed. Cas. 15,892, where jurisdiction defeated by bonding and releasing of property seized before filing information; Tracey v. Corse, 58 N. Y. 151, holding District Court had no jurisdiction to condemn barge which had passed from its custody by unauthorized sale by collector. Under slave trade act of 1807, anyone may seize vessel violating act, and proceeds are forfeited to government. Approved in United States v. Two Barrels of Desiccated Eggs, 185 Fed. 305, holding that proceedings under food and drug act are not within admiralty or maritime jurisdiction of Federal courts; United States v. George Spraul & Co., 185 Fed. 407, 107 C. C. A. 569, holding that in cases of seizures under pure food and drug act, courts proceed as court of tommon-law jurisdiction on trial by jury; Charge to Grand Jury, 30 Fed. Cas. 1027, holding seizure under slave trade act could be made by anyone. Miscellaneous. Cited in Richards v. Sanderson, 39 Colo. 274, 121 Am. St. Rep. 167, 89 Pac. 770, apparently miscited; Emerson v. Hall, 13 Pet. 411, 10 L. Ed. 224, 14 La. 3, reviewing decision in deciding against liability of captors' heirs to pay their ancestor's debts out of sum granted by Congress in consideration of ancestor's services in the prosecution; Blagge v. Balch, 162 U. S. 458, 40 L. Ed. 1036, 16 Sup. Ct. 856, Wheaton v. United States, 8 Blatchf. 475, Fed. Cas. 17,487, as instance of Supreme Court reviewing decree of the District Court, distributing captor's share of forfeited property on appeal brought by such captors. 10 Wheat. 333-358, 6 L. Ed. 334, BANK OF UNITED STATES v. BANK OF GEORGIA. When payment is received on forged paper or base coin, such party may, if without negligence, recover consideration paid. Approved in Neal v. Coburn, 92 Me. 147, 69 Am. St. Rep. 498, 42 Atl. 350, holding when bank pays check purporting to have been drawn by one of its depositors to innocent holder, bank cannot recover; Kenneth Inv. Co. v. Bank, 96 Mo. App. 145, 70 S. W. 179, holding retention of balanced bank-book by depositor for a long time, together with canceled checks, will not preclude him from recovering on payment of forged check; State Bank v. Cumberland Savings & Trust Co., 168 N. C. 606, L. R. A. 1915D, 1138, 85 S. E. 6, holding when bank pays check purporting to be drawn by one of its own depositors, it cannot recover; First Nat. Bank v. Bank of Wyndmere, 15 N. D. 303, 304, 125 Am. St. Rep. 588, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 49, 108 N. W. 548, holding that upon bank, which had paid forged check, discovering forgery, it could recover from bank which received the money; B. B. Ford & Co. v. People's Bank, 74 S. C. 183, 114 Am. St. Rep. 986, 7 Ann. Cas. 744, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 63, 54 S. E. 205, holding that upon payment by plaintiff of forged draft drawn on him, bearing indorsement of defendant bank, recovery could be had from bank; Semmes v. Wilson, 5 Cr. C. C. 289, 290, Fed. Cas. 12,658, holding innocent holder who gives forged note which he knows has been dishonored, in payment of debt, is liable for amount of credit received therefor; Foreman v. Hardwick, 10 Ala. 326, to point that maker winning his promissory note on wager did not constitute payment; State v. Abramson, 57 Ark. 150, 20 S. W. 1086, holding county precluded from recovery of debt paid in forged warrants by negligence in omitting to return and give notice of forgery; Redington v. Woods, 45 Cal. 425, 426, 13 Am. Rep. 201, 202, where bank held liable for amount paid on raised check, on ground of negligence in not returning check; Pope v. Nance, Minor, 315, where defendant, who had paid debt with note of third persons, one of whose names therein was a forgery, held released by negligence of payee; Collier v. Budd, 7 Mo. 487, where purchaser of bill of exchange from innocent parties, to which indorsement of payee had been forged, failed to recover because of negligence in giving notice; Bank v. Allen, 59 Mo. 314, 315, where plaintiff recovered amount paid to innocent holder for value on raised and altered check, where notice given as soon as forgery discovered; Thomas v. Todd, 6 Hill, 341, allowing recovery of sum paid in counterfeit bank notes lost through negligence of plaintiff; Curcier v. Pennock, 14 Serg. & R. 63, holding plaintiff entitled to recover sum paid in spurious foreign coin; Rick v. Kelly, 30 Pa. St. 530, holding recovery could be had of sum paid on promissory notes to which indorsements were forgeries, upon giving notice and making return within a reasonable time; Gilman v. Peck, 11 Vt. 519, 34 Am. Dec. 703, permitting recovery of sum paid in bank bill of insolvent bank, defendant being cognizant of such insolvency when he made such payment; Thrall v. Newell, 19 Vt. 207, 47 Am. Dec. 684, where amount of promissory note, void for insanity of maker, executed in favor of defendant and by him assigned to plaintiff, was recovered from defendant; De Voss v. Richmond, 18 Gratt. 359, 98 Am. Dec. 661, holding city liable for negligent omission of its agent dealing with innocent third person; Corbit v. Bank, 2 Harr. (Del.) 270, 30 Am. Dec. 651, arguendo. Modified in Pope v. Nance, 1 Stew. (Ala.) 371, 18 Am. Dec. 64, to point that offer to return forged note of third person, which had been received from defendant, not necessary where defendant not injured by the omission; Canal Bank v. Bank, 1 Hill, 293, where mere delay in giving notice of forgery did not preclude recovery in absence of neglect. Distinguished in Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Farmers & Traders' Bank, 159 Ky. 145, L. R. A. 1915A, 77, 166 S. W. 988, holding that bank was entitled to recover from defendant bank money paid on check under mistake; Jones v. Miners' etc. Bank, 144 Mo. App. 435, 128 S. W. 830, holding that in case of payment of forged negotiable instrument, rule does not apply; Bank of Williamson v. McDowell County Bank, 66 W. Va. 548, 562, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 605, 66 S. E. 762, 768, holding that where both parties were negligent, plaintiff could not recover money paid on forged check. Note, Ann. Cas. 632. Note, 3 E. R. C. 746. Right of bank to recover money paid by mistake. Liability for loss occasioned by forgery as between two innocent parties. Approved in Kenneth Inv. Co. v. National Bank, 103 Mo. App. 619, 77 S. W. 1003, applying principle; United States v. National Exchange Bank, 214 U. S. 312, 53 L. Ed. 1009, 29 Sup. Ct. 665, holding United States can recover from bank receiving money on forged pension checks; Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Citizens' Nat. Bk., 228 Fed. 605, holding bank could retain moneys repaid to it on forged drafts by corporation in whose employ was person who drew drafts; United States v. Bank of New York Nat. Banking Assn., 219 Fed. 651, L. R. A. 1915D, 797, 134 C. C. A. 579, holding that Secretary of Treasury could not recover for payment of forged draft of American consul; Scott v. Abbott, 160 Fed. 582, 87 C. C. A. 475, holding that where stockholders were defrauded by corporation, although entitled to rescind and recover from it, they could not exercise that right after it became bankrupt; National Exchange Bank v. United States, 151 Fed. 404, 80 C. C. A. 632, applying rule in action by United States to recover from one to whom pension check paid on forged indorsement; Bacon v. Bacon, 150 Cal. 493, 89 Pac. 323, where by mistake in copying will probated legacy written as for two thousand instead of ten thousand dollars, and legacy so distributed, remaining eight thousand going to residuary legatees, legatee could enforce trust against residuaries therefor, where limitations had not run from discovery of mistake; Boatsman v. Stockmen's Nat. Bank, 56 Colo. 502, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 107, 138 Pac. 767, holding bank not liable as negligence of plaintiff increased risk and money had been paid to person plaintiff intended; Woods v. Colony Bank, 114 Ga. 685, 40 S. E. 721, holding when holder of forged draft, by his negligence, contributed to success of fraud, drawee may recover from holder; Dedham Nat. Bank v. Everett Nat. Bank, 177 Mass. 395, 59 N. E. 63, holding where forged checks, payable to cash, and unindorsed, were paid by bank through clearing-house to another bank which had credited a depositor therefor, the bank paying could not recover the amount of the check; Brown v. People's Nat. Bank, 170 Mich. 425, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 657, 136 N. W. 509, holding that where payee of forged draft failed for two years to notify bank, he was estopped from recovery from it; Troll v. Sauerburn, 114 Mo. App. 327, 89 S. W. 366, where there were many deeds of trust with same trustee on certain property and holder of one, after purchasing property on foreclosure, released his deed, believing junior lienholder had no lien, release canceled for mistake; Ford v. People's Bank, 74 S. C. 183, 54 S. E. 205, determining right of holder of forged draft to retain money obtained; Hoffman v. Bank, 12 Wall. 193, 20 L. Ed. 369, and Young v. Lehman, 63 Ala. 523, holding payer of drafts accompanied by forged bills of lading cannot recover sum paid thereon to innocent holder; Bank v. Morgan, 117 U. S. 109, 29 L. Ed. 816, 6 Sup. Ct. 661, to effect that depositor could not recover from bank amounts paid on raised checks to his confidential agent when he had for some time had opportunity to discover fraud by inspecting his pass-book; United States v. Bank, 45 Fed. 167, holding government could not recover from bank money paid by latter on former's check to person to whom check delivered by government agent; Deposit Bank v. Fayette Bank, 90 Ky. 21, 7 L. R. A. 850, 851, 13 S. W. 339, bank cannot recover payments on forged checks to innocent holder for value; Louisiana Bank v. Citizens' Bank, 28 La. Ann. 191, 26 Am. Rep. 95, holding, a bank which had certified raised check must bear loss; Commercial Bank v. Bank, 30 Md. 20, 96 Am. Dec. 559, holding defendant not liable for amount paid on deposit of forged check on plaintiff which they had transmitted to, and been credited with by, plaintiff before such payment; Bank v. Swift, 70 Md. 518, 14 Am. St. Rep. 383, 17 Atl. 337, holding payment of check to innocent holder did not entitle bank to recovery where drawer had no funds in bank; Bank v. Boutell, 60 Minn. 191, 51 Am. St. Rep. 521, 27 L. R. A. 640, 62 N. W. 328, sustaining demurrer to complaint for money paid on forged check to innocent holder; Stout v. Benoist, 39 Mo. 281, 90 Am. Dec. 468, to effect that acceptor of forged bill could not recover sum paid thereon |