Opinion of the Court.

request the coöperation and assistance of the state authorities in the performance of the duties imposed upon them by this decree, and proceed with all convenient speed to discharge their duty in relocating and remarking such portions of said line as have become obliterated, as herein directed, and make their report thereof and of their proceedings in the premises to this court on or before the first day of May, 1896, together with a complete bill of costs and charges annexed.

And it is further ordered that, should either of said commissioners die or refuse to act or be unable to perform the duties required by this decree, while the court is not in session, the Chief Justice is hereby authorized and empowered to appoint another commissioner to supply the vacancy, and he is authorized to act on such information in the premises as may be satisfactory to himself.

It is further ordered, that all costs of this proceeding, including not exceeding ten dollars per day for each commissioner, and the other costs incident to the marking and establishment of this line, shall be paid by the States of Missouri and Iowa equally.

So ordered.

APPENDIX.

I.

AMENDMENT TO RULES.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

OCTOBER TERM, 1895.

Ordered that the 51st Rule of Practice in Admiralty be amended so as to read as follows:

51.

When the defendant, in his answer, alleges new facts, these shall be considered as denied by the libellant, and no replication, general or special, shall be filed, unless allowed or directed by the court on proper cause shown. But within such time after the answer is filed as shall be fixed by the district court, either by general rule or by special order, the libellant may amend his libel so as to confess and avoid, or explain or add to, the new matters set forth in the answer; and within such time as may be fixed, in like manner, the defendant shall answer such amendments.

(Promulgated January 27, 1896.)

693

II.

ASSIGNMENT TO CIRCUITS.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

694

OCTOBER TERM, 1895.

ORDER.

There having been an Associate Justice of this court appointed since the commencement of this term, it is ordered that the following allotment be made of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of said court among the Circuits, agreeably to the act of Congress in such case made and provided, and that such allotment be entered of record, viz. :

For the First Circuit, HORACE GRAY, Associate Justice.

For the Second Circuit, RUFUS W. PECKHAM, Associate Justice.
For the Third Circuit, GEORGE SHIRAS, JR., Associate Justice.
For the Fourth Circuit, MELVILLE W. FULLER, Chief Justice.
For the Fifth Circuit, EDWARD D. WHITE, Associate Justice.
For the Sixth Circuit, JOHN M. HARLAN, Associate Justice.
For the Seventh Circuit, HENRY B. BROWN, Associate Justice.
For the Eighth Circuit, DAVID J. BREWER, Associate Justice.
For the Ninth Circuit, STEPHEN J. FIELD, Associate Justice.
Announced February 3, 1896.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR.

An assignment of error which indicates the subject-matter in the charge to
which the exceptions relate with sufficient clearness to enable the court,
from a mere inspection of the charge, to ascertain the particular mat-
ter referred to, is sufficient. Hickory v. United States, 408.

BOUNDARY LINE.

At the request of the parties, this court, after deciding where is the true
and proper southern boundary line of the State of Iowa, appoints a
commission to find and remark the same with proper and durable
monuments. Missouri v. Iowa, 688.

CASES AFFIRMED.

1. Moore v. United States, 150 U. S. 57, 61, affirmed and applied to a ques-
tion raised in this case. Goldsby v. United States, 70.

2. Affirmed upon the authority of Washington & Idaho Railroad Company

695

v. Cœur d'Alene Railway & Navigation Company, 160 U. S. 77. Wash-
ington & Idaho Railroad Co. v. Cœur d'Alene Railway & Navigation Co.,
101.

3. Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, affirmed to the point that when, pending
an appeal from the judgment of a lower court, and without any fault
of the defendant, an event occurs which renders it impossible for the
appellate court, if it should decide the case in favor of the plaintiff, to
grant him any effectual relief, the court will not proceed to a formal
judgment, but will dismiss the appeal. New Orleans Flour Inspectors
v. Glover, 170.

4. Wood v. Brady, 150 U. S. 18, affirmed and applied to this case. Dough-
erty v. Nevada Bank, 171.

See CORPORATION, 4;

CRIMINAL LAW, 6;

ESTOPPEL, 4;

INDICTMENT, 4;
JURISDICTION, E, 1;
PRACTICE, 1.

CASES DISTINGUISHED.

See JURISDICTION, A, 6.

CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

The claimant originally enlisted at Washington in August, 1878, and was
discharged at Mare Island, California, November 6, 1886, receiving,
(under the provisions of Rev. Stat. § 1290, as amended by the act of
February 27, 1877,) travel pay and commutation of subsistence from
Mare Island to Washington. He did not return to Washington, but,
November 10, 1886, reënlisted at Mare Island as a private, and in the
course of his service was returned to Washington, where, at the ex-
piration of two years and four months, he was discharged at his own
request. Held, that, as the service was practically a continuous one,
and his second discharge occurred at the place of his original enlist-
ment, he was not entitled to his commutation for travel and sub-
sistence to the place of his second enlistment. United States v.
Thornton, 654.

COINAGE.

See JURISDICTION, A, 3.

CONFESSION.

See EVIDENCE, 8.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

1. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution in no way under-
takes to control the power of a State to determine by what process
legal rights may be asserted, or legal obligations be enforced, pro-