noncontraband news were collected and disseminated by the Associated Press. If that company were complainant and "clean-handed," its right to an injunction, the case being proper in other respects, would not be doubted. But if complainant were a gambler or a thief, what then? We think our answer has been sufficiently stated in Fuller v. Berger, 65 L. R. A. 381, 56 C. C. A. 588, 120 Fed. 274: "Equity is not concerned with the general morals of a complainant; the taint that is regarded must affect the particular rights asserted in his suit.

. . If the defendant can do no more than show that the complainant has committed some legal or moral offense which affects the defendant only as it does the public at large, the court must grant the equitable remedy and leave the punishment of the offender to other forums."

In this case the appellees, citizens of Indiana, have never had any dealings with appellant respecting the quotations; they have not been misled or deceived by appellant in any way; and they certainly are no more concerned with or affected by appel

lant's violations of the common law or of the penal laws of Illinois than the general public.

In reaching our conclusion, we have given respectful consideration to the cases of Board of Trade v. O'Dell Commission Co. 115 Fed. 574; Board of Trade v. Donovan Commission Co. 121 Fed. 1012; Board of Trade v. Ellis, 122 Fed. 319; Christie Grain & Stock Co. v. Board of Trade, 61 C. C. A. 11, 125 Fed. 161,-and regret that we are unable to concur therein. We have been aided by the opinion of Judge Hook at circuit (116 Fed. 944) in support of his decree in the Christie Case, which was reversed in 61 C. C. A. 11, 125 Fed. 161.

The decree herein is reversed, with the direction to enter a decree in appellant's favor in conformity to the prayer of the bill.

Petition for rehearing denied May 27, 1904.

Affirmed by Supreme Court of United States May 8, 1905.

KANSAS CITY, FORT MEMPHIS RAILROAD Appt.,

υ.

Josie WASHINGTON.

. . . . . . Ark.... . . . . . . . )

The checking of baggage to destina

A

tion upon a through ticket to transport the

passenger over roads of initial and connecting carriers will render the initial carrier liable for its loss on a connecting line.

(January 21, 1905.)

PPEAL by defendant from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Crittenden County in favor of plaintiff in an action brought to recover for the loss of baggage delivered to defendant for transportation. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

NOTE. AS to liability of initial carrier generally for goods carried beyond its own line, see cases in notes to Fox v. Boston & M. R. Co. 1 L. R. A. 703; Crossan v. New York & N. E. R. Co. 3 L. R. A. 766, and Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Payne, 6 L. R. A. 849; also the later cases in this series of McCarn v. International & G. N. R. Co. 16 L. R. A. 39; McCann v. Eddy, 35 L. R. A. 110; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Carter, 36 L. R. A. 527; Colfax Mountain Fruit Co. v. Southern P. Co. 40 L. R. A. 78; Richmond & A.

Mr. C. H. Trimble, for appellant: The initial carrier is only liable for loss on its own line.

Mauritz v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. 23 Fed. 765; Green v. New York C. R. Co. 4 Daly, 553; Milnor v. New York & N. H. R. Co. 53 N. Y. 363; Michigan C. R. Co. v. Mineral Springs Mfg. Co. 16 Wall. 318, 21 L. ed. 297; Myrick v. Michigan C. R. Co. 107 U. S. 106, 27 L. ed. 326, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 425; Ray, Negligence of Imposed Duties, p. 583.

A through ticket on three distinct lines of transportation on one piece of paper is to be regarded as a distinct ticket for each line.

Ray, Negligence of Imposed Duties, p. 525; Nashville & C. R. Co. v. Sprayberry, 9 Heisk. 852; Taylor v. Little Rock, M. R. & T. R. Co. 32 Ark. 393, 29 Am. Rep. 1; Packard v. Taylor, 35 Ark. 410, 37 Am. Rep. 37;

R. Co. v. R. A. Patterson Tobacco Co. 41 L. R. A. 511; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Southern Seating & Cabinet Co. 50 L. R. A. 729; Courteen v. Kanawha Despatch, 55 L. R. A. 182; and Taffe v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. 58 L. R. A. 187.

As to rights of passengers generally on connecting roads, and liability of initial carrier. see Harris v. Howe, 5 L. R. A. 777; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Looney, 16 L. R. A. 471; Atty. Gen. v. Old Colony R. Co. 22 L. R. A. 112; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Mulford, 35 L. R. A. 599.

Mr. J. T. Coston, for appellee:

If the receiving carrier collects full fare from the passenger, issues a through ticket to him, and checks his baggage to his destination, it thereby contracts to deliver the passenger and his baggage to the place of his destination, and is liable for loss or damage to baggage occurring on its own, or connecting, lines.

4 Elliott, Railroads, § 1658; Schouler, Bailments & Carriers, 2d ed. § 696; Hawley v. Screven, 62 Ga. 347, 35 Am. Rep. 127; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Campbell, 36 Ohio St. 647, 38 Am. Rep. 617; Carter v. Peck, 4 Sneed, 203, 67 Am. Dec. 604; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Weaver, 9 Lea, 38, 42 Am. Rep. 657; Coward v. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. 16 Lea, 225, 57 Am. Rep. 227; Candee v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 21 Wis. 582, 94 Am. Dec. 567; Nashua Lock Co. v. Worcester & N. R. Co. 48 N. H. 339, 2 Am. Rep. 242; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Copeland, 24 Ill. 332, 76 Am. Dec. 749: Illinois C. R. Co. v. Johnson, 34 Ill. 389; Foy v. Troy & B. R. Co. 24 Barb. 382; East Tennessee & V. R. Co. v. Rogers, 6 Heisk. 143, 19 Am. Rep. 589; Western & A. R. Co. v. McElwee, 6 Heisk. 208; Mobile & G. R. Co. v. Copeland, 63 Ala. 219, 35 Am. Rep. 13; St. John v. Southern Exp. Co. 1 Woods, 612, Fed. Cas. No. 12,228; Condict v. Grand Trunk R. Co. 54 N. Y

500; Peet v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 19 Wis. 119; Ogdensburg & L. C. R. Co. v. Pratt, 22

Wall. 132, 22 L. ed. 830.

Battle, J., delivered the opinion of the

court:

to transport property delivered to it to its destination, when that place is beyond its route. Some courts hold that, "when a carrier receives goods directed to a place beyond his line, he, in the absence of a stipulation to the contrary, by the very act of acceptance, engages to deliver them at their destination, wherever that may be. Other courts hold that the acceptance of the goods for shipment, so directed, implies nothing more than an agreement on the part of the carrier to transport them to the end of their route, and there deliver them to a connecting carrier to complete the carriage. The first of these views is sustained by the English courts and a few of the American states, and is known as the "English doctrine." The other is adopted by the decided weight of American authorities. As this court has not adopted either view, we are at liberty to adopt that which in our opinion is more reasonable.

Mr. Lawson, in his treaties on the Contracts of Common Carriers, gives the reason for the two views as follows: "In support of the first doctrine, it is argued that a different rule would work a great inconvenience. A person delivering his goods to a carrier, to be sent to a certain place, will service. He cannot be supposed to know generally rely on him alone to perform the the particular portion of the transit which the first carrier controls, much less, the other owners or proprietors of the continuous line. He intends to make one contract, but not two or three or half a dozen. When he places his property in the hands of the carrier, he at once loses all control over it. If it is not delivered, how is he to discover at what particular portion of the route it was lost? He would be forced to rely on the statements of the carriers themselves, who would be little likely to aid him in his search. If he did succeed in fixing the responsibility, he might find himself obliged to assert his claim against a party hundreds of miles away, and under circumstances which might well discourage a prudent man,

and induce him to bear his loss rather than

incur the expense and trouble of pursuing his remedy against so distant a defendant.

The first carrier, on the contrary, has facilities for tracing the loss not possessed by the public. He is in constant communication with his associates in the business. He has their receipts for the property delivered to them, and with no inconvenience at all could charge the loss to his negligent agent. In support of the second doctrine, it is simply answered that the extraordinary

justice be extended beyond their own routes, where alone they have an opportunity of choosing for themselves their servants, and of guarding the property intrusted to their care." Lawson, Contracts of Carr. §§

238-242, and cases cited. Hutchinson, Carr. 2d ed. §§ 145a, 149b, and cases cited.

We think the English doctrine more reasonable, and adopt it. Judgment affirmed.

W. H. HOLMES, Appt.,

บ.

N. A. MARSHALL et al. and

Annie J. JENKINS, Respt.

(145 Cal. 777.)

1. The exemption from execution of the proceeds of insurance policies is not limited to claims against the insured, but extends to those against the

beneficiary, under a statute providing that all moneys, benefits, privileges, or immunities accruing, or in any manner growing out of, life insurance, are exempt from execution; and the same rule applies where the policy is pay

able to the estate of the assured, and, being

exempt from his debts, the proceeds are distributed to his widow under the statute as

his next of kin.

2. The deposit by the beneficiary of the proceeds of a life-insurance policy, which are exempt from execution for her debts, in a bank, does not destroy the exemption.

3. The court may set aside the levy of an attachment upon exempt property.

(January 17, 1905.)

Bolt v. Keyhoe, 30 Hun, 619; Crosby v. Stephan, 32 Hun, 478; Millington v. Fox, 13 N. Y. Supp. 334; Commercial Travelers' Asso. v. Newkirk, 16 N. Y. Supp. 177; Re Brown, 123 Cal. 399, 69 Am. St. Rep. 74, 55 Pac. 1055.

Had the statute applied to the heirs or beneficiaries it would have so declared, and, in the absence of such designation, it would be giving the statute a broader scope than was intended by the legislature, by construing it to read in favor of persons not therein

named.

Only money, and not a debt, is exempt from execution.

L. ed. 374, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 322; Janin v. Phoenix Bank v. Risley, 111 U. S. 125, 28 London & S. F. Bank, 92 Cal. 14, 14 L. R. A. 320, 27 Am. St. Rep. 82, 27 Pac. 1100; Pullen v. Placer County Bank, 138 Cal. 169, 94 Am. St. Rep. 19, 66 Pac. 740, 71 Pac. 83.

Where the debtor voluntarily parts with the ownership of exempt property, and acquires in lieu thereof property not exempt, he waives his right to the benefit of the exemption law.

2 Freeman, Executions, 3d ed. § 235; Harrier v. Fassett, 56 Iowa, 264, 9 N. W. 217;

Superior Court for Los Angeles County setting aside an attachment of the proceeds of a life-insurance policy. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the Commissioner's opinion.

Messrs. Powers & Holland, for appellant:

As the statute of this state has prescribed a mode of procedure, and pointed out the circumstances under which an attachment may be dissolved, the statutory remedy is the length and breadth of the respondent's rights in the premises.

Waples, Attachm. p. 427.

The statutes of exemption are in derogation of the common-law principle that a man's property should be taken in payment and satisfaction of his indebtedness, and the exemption laws should not be expanded or enlarged to include persons not therein specifically mentioned.

2 Freeman, Executions, 3d ed. § 234b;

NOTE. As to exemption of proceeds of lifeinsurance policy, see also, in this series, Brown v. Balfour, 12 L. R. A. 373.

ton, 98 N. C. 190, 2 Am. St. Rep. 331, 3 S. E. 638; Knabb v. Drake, 23 Pa. 489, 62 Am. Dec. 352; Drake, Attachm. § 244a; Cranz v. White, 27 Kan. 319, 41 Am. Rep. 408; State, Jardain, Prosecutor, v. Fairton Sav. Fund & Bldg. Asso. 44 N. J. L. 376; Rozelle v. Rhodes, 116 Pa. 129, 2 Am. St. Rep. 591, 9 Atl. 160; Martin v. Hurlburt, 60 Vt. 364, 14 Atl. 649; McIntosh v. Aubrey, 185 U. S. 122, 46 L. ed. 834, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 561.

The statute says "money accruing" out of life insurance, etc., shall be exempt. The word "money" has a well-defined meaning.

15 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 701.

The word "accruing" does not apply to money already in hand.

Gross v. Partenheimer, 159 Pa. 556, 28 Atl. 370; Johnson v. Humboldt Ins. Co. 91 Ill. 95, 33 Am. Rep. 47; Kennedy v. Burrier, 36 Mo. 128; Cutcliff v. McAnally, 88 Ala. 509, 7 So. 331; Jones v. Thompson, 27 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 234; Dresser v. Johns, 6 C. B. N. S. 434.

Petition for rehearing in banc. The legislature has no power to increase

the amount of property which a debtor may claim as exempt, so as to affect existing creditors.

Gunn v. Barry, 15 Wall. 610, 21 L. ed. 212; Edwards v. Kearsey, 96 U. S. 595, 24 L. ed. 793; Skinner v. Holt, 9 S. D. 435, 62 Am. St. Rep. 883, 69 N. W. 597; Johnson v. Fletcher, 54 Miss. 629, 28 Am. Rep. 388.

The law existing when a contract is made enters into and forms a part of it; and this is applicable as well to the remedy as to the right, so that the impairment or taking away of the remedy is an impairment of the obligations of a contract.

12 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. p. 167. The burden of proof of showing that money claimed to be exempt under a lifeinsurance policy is so rests upon the party making such claim.

12 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. pp. 75, 76, and notes; Re McManus, 87 Cal. 294, 10 L. R. A. 567, 22 Am. St. Rep. 250, 25 Pac. 413.

When a statute does not exempt specific articles, but exempts money within certain limits, property purchased with the exempt money is exempt.

Yates County Nat. Bank v. Carpenter, 119 N. Y. 550, 7 L. R. A. 557, 16 Am. St. Rep. 855, 23 N. E. 1108; Pool v. Reid, 15 Ala. 826; 2 Freeman, Executions, 3d ed. § 235, p. 1270.

Cooper, C., filed the following opinion: This action is upon a promissory note for $1,000, dated October 5, 1899, signed by J. F. Jenkins and his wife, Annie J. Jenkins. J. F. Jenkins died intestate, and respondent, Annie J. Jenkins, is his surviving widow. After the action had been commenced, a writ

The power of the court over its process is essential to the administration of justice, and is coeval with the common-law courts, and does not by any means depend upon statutory enactments.

Sandburg v. Papineau, 81 Ill. 446; 8 Enc. Pl. & Pr. p. 579; Blair v. Compton, 33 Mich. 414; Palmer v. Gardiner, 77 Ill. 143; Jones v. Williams, 2 Swan, 105; Bryan v. Bridge, 6 Tex. 137.

If an execution is levied upon exempt property the levy may be quashed or vacated on motion in the court from which the execution issued.

12 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. p. 255; Totten v. Sale, 72 Ala. 488; Catron v. Lafayette County, 125 Mo. 67, 28 S. W. 331; Jacks v. Bigham, 36 Ark. 481; Farrell v. McKee, 36 Ill. 225; Finke v. Craig, 57 Mo. App. 393; Wilson v. Stripe, 4 G. Greene, 551, 61 Am. Dec. 138.

$1,020.57 on deposit in the Citizens' National Bank of Los Angeles to the credit of respondent, Annie J. Jenkins. The court made an order, after notice, and on motion of respondents, setting aside the levy of said writ, and dissolving it as to the money so on deposit with said bank. This appeal is from the order so made.

The principal question is as to whether or not the said money was subject to the debts of respondent, Annie J. Jenkins, or exempt from execution against her. At the time of his death, J. F. Jenkins was the owner and holder of three full paid-up life-insurance policies upon his own life, two of which (one for $99 and one for $1,385) were payable to respondent, Annie J. Jenkins, and one of which (for $982.50) was payable to the estate of deceased, his administrators. or executors. The estate of said deceased was duly probated, and the $982.50 insurance collected, which constituted the en

Schillinger v. Boes, 85 Ky. 357, 3 S. W. 427; Brown v. Balfour, 46 Minn. 68, 12 L. R. A. 373, 48 N. W. 604; Re How, 61 Minn. 217, 63 N. W. 627; First Nat. Bank v. How, 65 Minn. 187, 67 N. W. 994; Minn. Gen. Stat. 1894, § 3312.

The estate of the deceased is held in trust only, by the executor or administrator for a limited period for purposes of administration; and the court in such cases will not regard the estate, or administrator, or executor, as the actual owner, but will look through and beyond this limited and temporary right of possession of the administrator or executor to ascertain the real and intended beneficiary of the deceased. Pace v. Pace, 19 Fla. 438.

$539.45 after paying costs and expenses of administration. This was set apart to the surviving widow, Annie J. Jenkins, as exempt from execution, under § 1465, Code Civ. Proc. The proceeds of all said policies were deposited by respondent, Annie J. Jenkins, in one account, to her credit in said Citizens' National Bank of Los Angeles. She drew against this account from time to time until the date of the levy of the attachment, when there remained the sum of $1,020.27 to her credit in said bank.

"All moneys, benefits, privileges, or immunities accruing, or in any manner growing, out of any life insurance, if the annual premiums paid do not exceed $500,"__ are exempt from execution. Code Civ. Proc. subdiv. 18, § 690. The main contention of

against the debts of the person whose life