Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/528

 Pallard v. Duht, 4 Crnh 421; Barry v. Fw/ar, I Pet. 311." 'In Ez  ',  U. 8. , , .  J "  of  p e p w a n my    not one't e ne  'con of t . It  mer  e  of a  exempon  favor of a deft,  it h o wh  y wve. If e gmp of    fficient, s defent my wnt    h  ply,  inly j &on  not  o  he  n." '  Fst N B o/Cr v. Man, 1 U.S. 141, 1, . J  th fe 'a  quon: " exempon of o nking o from    , mbh ewhe t  e ty or dry  weh tach tio were 1, w, we do not doubt, .pfi for the nvenien of th titutiom,   prevent mpon  their b tt t  t from e   t  dt ti in o dien  p .... If it (the exemption) n '. em by the defender when ap  the Sudor  of eved y, it mt ve n i.  defender did not, however, ehe  cm immity from st  tt . It c defe un the mede, , ng n ful, precu a t of er  the Supme u of the S, d in the tr tbun, for the t time, clm the immunity n  it by n.  w  la. We are of opion tt i exem on from  in other u of the me S wa4 a pe pdlege that it d waive, and which, in t e, the de- fendt did waive, by apdaring and ng defe without clai the immuty antcl by Con." In Mk Hasti Machi Cny v. Wds, 134 U.S. 41, 43, Mr. Chicf Jtice Fuller, quot .the pr vio of  1 of the t of 1, id: "e jicon common  all Civet u of the Uni-

�