346 petent evidence; tha.t copies s'hould have been produced. This objection the court overruled. Copies of record are from necessity, becaustdhe originals cannot be produced. The originals are the best evidence, and the admission of copies does not exclude the originals when they can be produced. In Gatev. Nutte,', 24 N. H. 108, it was held that where a copy of a record is admisflible in evidence, the record itself is equally admissible. So, in Jones v. French, 22,N. H. 64. The papers admitted as evidence were not an extended record; none had been made, but various orders and decrees of the court, and in such case; in proceedings in equity, the original papers and docket entl'ies will be deemed the record. U. S. Bank v.Benning, 4 Cranch, C. C. 81. On oODsiderationthe ruling of the court was correct, and the bill in this case should be dismissed.
BARTLETT
and others v. HI!,! IMPERIAL MAJESTY TURKEY' and others.
THE
SULTAN
01'
WircuU Court, $. D.New YO'l'k. February 25,1884.) .PluCTlpll::-8Ell.VlQE OF PROCESS ONATToRNEY-SO'IT FOR INJuNCTION.
Ina 8uitto enjoin the prosecution of im action at law, if the defendant cant'ioi be found in the district, process may be served upon his attorneys in the legalaction.' .
In Equity. GoodJrieh, Deady £t Platt, for plaintiffs. Tracy, Olmstead £t Tracy, for American National Bank, for the purposes of this motion only. WALLAOE, J. The theory of this bill is that the complainants, as warehousemen, having been sued by the defendants severally in actions ,at law, to recover the possession of personal property in the custody of complainants aS8uch warehousemen, are entitled to compel the defendants to interplead and relieve complainants from the burden of the several litigations at law. As part of the relief prayed for; the complainants seek to enjoin the defendants from ,their proceedings at law. For reasons which it is not now necessary to state, it may be doubtful whether the complainants can maintain their bill. The question now is, however, not whether the bill is good upon demurrer, but whether the complainants are entitled to secure the appearance of the defendants who caunot be served with process, because they cannot be found within the district by service of prO\\eBS upon the attorneys for the d,efendants in the suits at law in this district. Thisha.s long been recognized as good practice whellthe suit
WALLAMEo:f IRON BJ;UDGE CO. tl. RUClIe
847. ,"
in equity is brou,g};ltto enjoin proceedings at law. As the has already been served upon the defendants' attorpeys, an order au· thorizing such service will be granted upon presenting a sufficient affidavit.
WALLAMET L
IRON BRIDGE
Co.
t1.
a.nd another.
Oowrt, D. Orego,., :March 3, 1884.) BILL OP REVIEW.
An application to file a bill of review, without the performance of the decree, ought to be made to the court by petition and on notice to the adverse party, and if it appears that the performance of the decree would destroy the subject of the litigation, it ought to be allowed. '
SAME-HEARING.
a. 40.
On the hearing of a bill of review the, court can only consider the errors of law apparent on the face of the record, aI)d a fact found or determined by the decree is presumed to have been sufficiently proved by the evidence. THE WALLAMET RIVER A NAVIGABLE WATER OF THE UNITED S'rATEs.
The Wallamet river, though wholly within the state of Oregon, by means of its connection with the Columbia river, forms, a highway for interstate and foreign commerce, and is therefore a navigable river of the United Btates, and subject, as such, to the control of congress. '
NAVIGABLB WATERS IN OREGON ABE COMMON HIGHWAYS.
The act of February 14, 185ll, (11 St. 383,) admitting Oregon.into the UnioD, which declares that the navigable waters therein shall be "common highWays 'and forever free" to the citizens of the United. States, is not a compact made with or condition imposed upon the state in consideration of its admission .into the UnioD, but is, so far, an absolute and, valid regulation, made by cqngress in pursuance of its power over the navigable waters of the Uriited States, as a means of interdtate and foreign commerce, which it might as well: have enacted before or after as at the time of 'such admission. Congress, by the act of 1859, having declared the Wallamet river" a common highway," the state cannot authorize anyone to build a bridge across the same, which, under the circumstances of the oasei will needlessly impede or obstruct the navigation thereof.
·· OBSTRUCTION TO "COMMON HIGHWAY."
8.
JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT. The WaUamet river being declared co a common highway"
by congrellB, the question of what constitutes a needless and therefore unlawful obstruction thereto arises under a law of the United States, and therefore the United States circuit court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a suit involving the 'same.
T. THE ORDINANCE OJ!' 1787. Semble, that the clause in the fourth article of the compact in the ordinance of 1787, concerning the navigable waters of the Northwest territory, was not abrogated or sl:lperaeded by the formation of states therein and their admission
into the Union.
Bill of Review. George H. Williams and Ru!u, Mallory, for plaintiff. Walter W. Thayer and John M. 'Gearin, for defendants. DEADY, J. This is a bill of revi13w,filed May 27, 1883, and brought to reverse the final deoree given in this court on, October 22, 1881, in a suit between the parties hereto, commence.d by the de· 1 Reversed.
See 8 SUllo Ct. Rep. 811.
