Opinion of the Court.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.

Circuit Courts, in deciding causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction on the instance side of the court, are required to find the facts and the conclusions of law upon which their judgments and decrees are rendered, stating them separately; and we are limited, in reviewing such judgments and decrees, to a determination of the questions of law arising upon the record, and to such rulings of the court, excepted to at the time, as may be presented by a bill of exceptions, prepared as in actions at law. 18 Stat. 315; The Gazelle, 128 U. S. 474, 484. And this judgment of the Supreme Court of Dakota Territory is subject to review in the same manner and under the same regulations. Rev. Stat. § 702.

By the purchase of the steamer on the 18th of February, 1880, under the agreement dated the fourth day of that month, Braithwaite and Biggert acquired the legal title to be held in trust for the payment to the "parties of the second part," Cadman & Co., Robinson, Rea & Co., and Kay, McKnight & Co., of their claims as creditors and their advances to assist Braithwaite and Biggert to make the purchase.

When this was accomplished, Braithwaite and Biggert were to remain equal owners of the boat freed from the encumbrance. Joseph McC. Biggert seems to have been substituted for John D. Biggert, but as our conclusion is reached without regard to that circumstance, they will be treated as one. The agreement provided that the steamer was to be commanded by Braithwaite, and she was accordingly run by him during the navigation season of 1880, and earned eight thousand dollars, which went into the hands of Biggert, who was financial agent under the agreement, but this money had not been apportioned and distributed when the libel was filed.

On the 2d of February, 1881, Braithwaite and Biggert, the trustees, and Robinson, Rea & Co., Cadman & Co. and Kay, McKnight & Co., the creditors, by a written memorandum signed at Pittsburgh, appointed Rea, Biggert and Kay a committee to effect the sale of the steamer, with power to accept

Opinion of the Court.

any offer of not less than eleven thousand five hundred dollars cash, or the equivalent in approved paper. At this time the steamer was lying in the Missouri River, a little below Fort Benton; but it appears from the interveners' petition, that on or about April 1 she had been released from the ice in which she had wintered, and been brought down to Bismarck by her master, Braithwaite. The court found that the committee made a conditional agreement with Leighton's agent to sell the steamer for eleven thousand five hundred dollars, if she should not be damaged to exceed five hundred dollars; that a bill of sale was made by libellants April 1, 1881, transferring the boat to the interveners, but it was not delivered or any money paid thereon; that Braithwaite refused to sign it and notified the interveners and the committee that his interest was not for sale, after which the interveners paid the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars; that Braithwaite was the owner of one-half interest in the steamer when the action was commenced; and that eight hundred dollars was due to him for wages under the written agreement with the libellants, no part of which had been paid or tendered to him by any of the parties.

The memorandum of February 2d was obviously entered into in view of the situation of the Eclipse as she lay locked up in the ice just below Fort Benton, and not as she was when safe in the port of Bismarck, and the authority vested in the committee to effect a sale was limited to the acceptance of an offer of not less than a certain amount in cash or its equivalent. A contract for a sale conditioned on how much the vessel might turn out to have been damaged by her environment and extrication therefrom was not within the power conferred, which contemplated only a sale for a sum certain at the risk of the buyer, and did not embrace an executory contract dependent on a contingency. We are of opinion, upon the facts found, that nothing had been done which operated to divest the legal title, and that when the libel was filed that title was in Braithwaite and Biggert, and the interest of the interveners and of Biggert's co-libellants was equitable merely. Braithwaite was the legal owner of one-half and was the

Opinion of the Court.

master in possession. Of that possession he could not be deprived on the ground set up in the libel, that the libellants were a majority of the owners, for such was not the fact; and, moreover, he was not only part owner and master, but by the written agreement, which was still subsisting, was entitled to such possession as master, and therefore not liable to removal under section 4250 of the Revised Statutes, which provides that "any person or body corporate having more than onehalf ownership of any vessel shall have the same power to remove a master, who is also part owner of such vessel, as such majority owners have to remove a master not an owner," but that the section shall not apply "where there is a valid written agreement subsisting, by virtue of which such master would be entitled to possession.'

So far as the creditors and interveners were concerned, if the former desired to wind up the trust, or the latter to enforce an alleged contract of sale, which is indeed what is asked by this intervention, they should have resorted to a different tribunal. While the court of admiralty exercises its jurisdiction upon equitable principles, it has not the characteristic powers of a court of equity. It cannot entertain a bill or libel for specific performance, or to correct a mistake, Andrews v. Essex Ins. Co., 3 Mason, 6, 16; or declare or enforce a trust or an equitable title, Ward v. Thompson, 22 How. 330; The Amelia, 6 Ben. 475; Kellum v. Emerson, 2 Curtis, 79; or exercise jurisdiction in matters of account merely, Grant v. Poillon, 20 How. 162; Minturn v. Maynard, 17 How. 477; The Ocean Belle, 6 Ben. 253; or decree the sale of a ship for an unpaid mortgage, or declare her to be the property of the mortgagees and direct possession of her to be given to them. Bogart v. The John Jay, 17 How. 399. The jurisdiction embraces all maritime contracts, torts, injuries or offences, and it depends, in cases of contract, upon the nature of the contract, and is limited to contracts, claims and services purely maritime, and touching rights and duties appertaining to commerce and navigation. People's Ferry Co. v. Beers, 20 How. 393, 401. There was nothing maritime about the claims of the interveners, and the intervention was properly dismissed for want of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Counsel for Parties.

The opinion of the Supreme Court of Dakota by Church, J., will be found reported in 30 N. W. Rep. 159, and deals with the facts in more detail than we have been at liberty to do. We agree with the results arrived at by that court and its judgment is therefore

Affirmed.

FARRAR v. CHURCHILL.

CHURCHILL v. FARRAR.

APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI.

Nos. 266, 603. Argued April 16, 1890.- Decided May 19, 1890.

Cross-appeals in equity must be prosecuted like other appeals; and although they may be taken and allowed after removal of the cause, on appeal, to this court, yet that cannot be done after the lapse of two years from the date of the decree.

The court takes notice of the facts that in this case no assignment of errors was annexed to the transcript of the record as required by law, and that no specification of errors was made in the brief of counsel, as required by the rule, and expresses the hope that there will be no recurrence of such omissions.

If a purchaser of real estate, to whom representations of the character and value of the property are made by the vendor, visits the property itself prior to the sale, and makes a personal examination of it touching those representations, he will be presumed to rely on his own examination, in making the purchase, and not upon the representations of the vendor, and in the absence of fraud or concealment, cannot have the sale set aside: applying this rule to the present case, the bill must be dismissed. IN EQUITY. Decrees dismissing the bill and the cross-bill. Each party appealed. The case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. Alexander Pope Humphrey (with whom was Mr. George M. Davie on the brief) for Farrar, administrator.

Mr. W. Hallett Phillips on behalf of Churchill submitted a motion to dismiss the cross-appeal on his brief. Mr. W. Hallett Phillips on behalf of Mr. William L. Nugent for Churchill and another, on the merits submitted on Mr. Nugent's brief.

VOL. CXXXV-39

Opinion of the Court.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.

John Churchill held title to certain lands in Mississippi, as trustee for Mary M. Clark, whose husband, M. L. Clark, in 1881, employed J. H. D. Bowmar, of Vicksburg, to sell the property, which he did, to A. B. Pittman, also a resident of that city, and on the 16th of March, 1882, Churchill as trustee, and Mr. and Mrs. Clark, all residing in Louisville, Kentucky, conveyed the lands and "the mules, implements and cattle on the plantation, save two horses, reserved by said two parties,” to Pittman. This conveyance recites that it is "made this 9th day of January, 1882," but the attestation clause is that the signatures are appended the 16th day of March, 1882,," the date of the sale being of 9th January, 1882," and the acknowledgment by the grantors is March 16. The consideration of the conveyance was $5000 in cash, and four notes of Pittman for $5000 each, bearing interest at eight per cent and payable at one, two, three and four years from date.

In the latter part of January, 1882, certain other personalty on the premises was sold by Clark to Pittman for $1000 cash and three acceptances, one for $1000, due April 1, one for $1000, due May 1, and one for $1133.10, due June 1, 1882, with grace. Two of these acceptances were transferred by Clark to the trustee, who, when they matured, brought a separate suit upon each of them. The other acceptance passed into the hands of a bona fide holder without notice. When the first of the notes given as consideration for the conveyance became due, suit was brought upon it, and on the 7th of November, 1883, Pittman filed his bill in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi against John Churchill, trustee, and Mr. and Mrs. Clark, alleging that fraudulent representations had been made to him in the sale of the plantation and accompanying personal property, and also in the matter of the personalty subsequently purchased from Clark, and asking that the three suits above mentioned be enjoined; for an account of damages suffered, and their application by way of recoupment, offering to pay