688

91

FEDERAIl REPORTER.

and for the (lOnsequenee!!of which'the vessel Is not liable. 'The Concord, 58 Fed. 913 ; The France, 80. O. A. 185, 59 Fed. 479. <The libel is dismissed.
. THE ROBERT O. McQUILLEN. (Dil;trlct Oourt, D. Oonnectlcut. January 21, 1899.) No. 1,130.
SEAMEN-W'AGlllSWHlLE DISABLED FROM INJURy-CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

The neglfgence of a seaman, contI'lbuting to an Injury; which made .It necessarY(Q put in to a port and leave him, does not debar him from recovering 41, full wagel'l' which Include all that would have accrued upon the cOIQpletf0Il of the vOYl).ge. lI

Samuel' Pa:rk,for libelant. Deforest & Klein, for claimants. TOWNSEND, District JUdge. Libel in' rem for wages. For further facts' as to "libelant'B employment and injury, Bee J ohnBon v. The Robert C.' Mcquillen, 91 Fed. '685. At New York, on the 31st day of August, 1895, libelant waB dnly employed as" a Beaman on claimants' schooner, and while the vesBel was on the return voyage from Darien, Ga., to New York, libelant was struck on the back by the main bOODl, and recei'ved stich injuries that the' maBter of the veBBel was obliged to put in at Wilmington, and to send him to the hOBpital. The Bum of $22.17 was paid him there as wageB, said sum being the amount earned up. to that time only, and the veBsel then returned to New York. It is settled that, generally,. a seaman injured or taken sick in the service of a. 'Ship, and left in a foreign port without his COtJ,Sent,is .entitled to biB.full wageB to the end of the voyage or until i'l=iBtored'to health. But claimantB contend that they are not liable for any amount above said $22.17,because said Bum was received by-libelantinftill of said wages; and, further, because said diBability -resulted trom his own negligence. The first point iB not proved.-. M: to the second point, the opinions of Mr. Justice WaBhingtonin Sims v.Jackson, 1 Wash. C. O. 414, Fed. Oas. No. 12,890, and of Judge Brown in The City of Ale:xandria,17 Fed. 390, and of ,The Governor Ames, 55 Fed. 327, are to the effect that the mere negligence oftbe seaman does not ,debar him froin.recoveringihis full and that· the term "full wages" means the aggregate-amounts of all the monthly sums which would have accrued upon the completion of the voyage. . Let a decree be entered for the libelant for the sum of $11.32, and his costs.
1

.

1 A$to both master and servant, see note to Wm. JohIlso·n & 00. v. JObansen,S!>;O.C. A.

FIRST NAT. BANK V; PRAGER.

689

FIRST NAT. BANK OF PARKERSBURG v. PRAGER et 81. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
No. 281.

1. REMOVAL OF CAUSEs-JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURT EQUITY. ATTACHMENT IN

February 7, 1899.)

A federal court of equity is without jurisdiction to entertain a suit under a state statute by a contract creditor to obtain an attachment, and to set aside as in fraud of creditors a conveyance by his debtor; and such a suit is not rem{)vable into a circuit court from a state court.1
EFFECT OF CONSENT AGREE-

2.

SAME - FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH STATUTE MENT.

a

A cause cannot be removed from a state court by the entry of a consent agreement therefor in a circuit court of the United States, without the filing in the state court of the petition and bond required by the removal act.

JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURT-CONSENT OF PARTIES.

Jurisdiction to hear and determine a suit of which it is without jurisdiction under the statutes, or which has not been removed from a state court in the statutory manner, cannot be conferred on a federal court by consent of the parties; and its judgment in such a suit is a nullity.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of West Virginia. H. P. Camden, for appellant. . V. B. Archer, W. N. Miller, W. W. Van Winkle, and B. M. Ambler, for appellees. / nefore GOFF, Circuit Judge, and PAUL and WADDILL, District Judges. PAUL, District Judge. This is an appeal from a decree of 'the circuit court of the United States for the district of West. Virginia. The apPeHant was plaintiff, and the appellees defendants, in the court below, and they will be herein designated as the "plaintiff" and the "defendants." The material question presented for our consideration, and, in our judgment, the only one necessary to be determined, is that of the jurisdiction of the circuit tourt to. have entertained and considered the cause on its merits. The record shows that on the 29th day of December, 1896, the defendantsPrager & Son executed a deed 9f assignment to one Henry Keller, a co-defendant in this suit, for the benefit of the creditors of the said Prager & Son. On the 31st day of December, 1896, the plaintiff sued out on the chancery side of the circuit court of Wood county, W. Va., under the provisions of a statute of that state (Code W. Va. '1891, c. 74, § 1), process of attachment against the property conveyed in the deed, of .assignment by Prager & Son to Keller, trustee, and filed its bill in chancery against Prager & Son and Keller, the trustee in the deed of assignment. The plaintiff's demand was for $2,500, evidenced by four promissory notes, none of which were yet due. The bill charged that the deed had been executed for the
1 As to removal of causes, generally, see note to Robbins v. Ellenbogen, 18 C. O. A. 86. 91 F.--44