Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/386

 WHITK V. CEAWFOED, ���371 ���section is to be qualified by the language of the 4504tb section, which expressly declares that nothing in this title shall prevent the owner, consignee, or master, of any vessel, except vessels bound from a port in the United States to any foreign port, other than vessels engaged in trade between the United States and the British North American possessions, or the West India islands, or the republic of Mexico, etc., from performing himself, so far as his vessel is concerned, the duties of shipping commissioner. This language expressly applies to the whole title, and, of course, to section 4549, which is a part of it. �We are perfectly satisfied that the revision bas not altered the pre- vious law, and that the act does not apply to a vessel which bas been engaged in a voyage to the West India islands, which was the present case. We think, therefore, that the defendant is not liable for the penalty sued for, and that the verdict must be in his favor. �The same conclusion, in effect, vras reached by the supreme court of the United States in the case of U. S. v. The Grace Lothrop, 95 U. S. 527, where the question was, whether a written agreement, as reqiiired by the act of 1872, should be executed in the presence of a shipping commissioner, when the ship had been engaged in a voyage to the West Indies; and it was decided that the act in its original form, or as revised, did not apply to the case. ���White V. Ckawfoed and others. �{Circuit Court, D. Minnesota. November, 1881.) �1. Proving Claim in BANKEUPTcy— Liens— Waiver. �A creditoT waives any lien he may have upon the property of his debtor, hy proving up his debt as an unsecured daim. �Robert P. Lewis, one of the defendants, on the seventh day of June, 1875, gave his note, and a mortgage to secure the same, on the S. W. J of section 22, in township 30, range 22, excepting therefrom five acres in the S. E. cor- ner thereof, to John W. White, the plaintiff, intending, hovveVer, to convey such property in township 29 instead of township 30. On the first day of July, 1876, the said Lewis gave a second note, and a mortgage to secure the same, on the same property as described in the flrst mortgage, as also upon' a certain other piece of property; but, in this second mortgage, mailing the same mistake as in the flrst. Again, September 1, 1877, the said Lewis, h;iv- ing discovered his mistake made in the first and second mortgiiges, makes a third mortgage for the purpose of eorrecting the mistake, in which he describes the property as being in township 29. Between the giving of the flrst two mortgages and the tlurd, con'ecting the first two, one James A. Cravvford, a ��� �