Motives of public policy prohibit a bill to reach the salary of a state official ; Bank of Tennessee v. Dibrell, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) 379 ; or of an employ6 of a municipal corporation ; Addyston Pipe Co. v. City of Chicago, 170 Ill. 580, 48 N. E. 967, 44 L. R. A. 405; Mor gan v. Rust, 100 Ga. 346, 28 S. E. 419 ; but if the court can ascertain that no inconven ience can result to the public in a given case, the suit may be maintained ; Berton v. An derson, 56 Ark. 476, 20 S. W. 250; Knight v. Nash, 22 Minn. 452 ; Pendleton v. Perkins, 49 Mo. 565. There are various statutory exemp tions, such as homesteads ; Jayne v. Hymer, 66 Neb. 785, 92 N. W. 1019 ; Hines v. Dun can, 79 Ala. 112, 58 Am. Rep. 580. Money in custodia legis, as in the hands of a clerk of court in his official capacity, cannot be made the subject of a creditor's bill ; Anheuser Busch Brewing Ass'n v. Hier, 52 Neb. 424, 72 N. W. 588 ; U. S. v. Eisenbeis, 88 Fed. 4. A creditor's bill will lie against municipal corporation, though the same be not subject to garnishment. See Addison Pipe & Steel Co. v. Chicago, 28 Chicago Leg. News 256.
State statutes authorizing suits in the na ture of creditors' bills against corporations do not give the federal courts jurisdiction to entertain such suits when the creditor has not first exhausted his legal remedy, since the equity jurisdiction of those courts cannot be enlarged by a state statute ; Morrow Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Shoe Co., 60 Fed. 341, 8 C. C. A. 652, 24 L. R. A. 417 ; nor will such a bill lie to obtain the seizure of the property of an insolvent corporation which has failed to col lect stock subscriptions and executed an il legal trust deed, as these facts do not change the rule of those courts that simple contract creditors cannot obtain the aid of equity to effect the seizure of the debtor's property and its application to their claims ; Hollins v.
Coal & Iron Co., 150 U. S. 371, 14 Sup. Ct. 127, 37 L. Ed. 1113. But see Atlanta & F. R. Co. v. Ry. Co., 35 Cent. L. J. 207.
See Bisph. Eq. 525-528; Richmond v. Irons, 121 U. S. 44, 7 Sup. Ct. 788, 30 L. Ed. 864 ; 4 Harv. L. Rev. 99 ; 5 id. 101; Ad. Eq. 250.
Such small inlets of the sea, whether within the precinct or extent of a port or without, as are narrow passages, and have shore on either side of them. Calls, Sew. 56; 5 Taunt. 705.
Such inlets that though possibly for their extent and situation they might be ports. yet are either members of or dependent upon other ports.
In England the name arose thus. The king could not conveniently have a customer and comptroller in every port or. haven. But such custom-officers were fixed at some eminent port ; and the smaller adjacent ports became by that means creeks, or ap pendants of that port whore these custom-officers were placed. 1 Chit. Com. Law, 726; Hale, de Porti bus Maris, pt. 2, c. 1, vol. 1, p. 46; Comyns, Dig. Navigation, (C); Callis, Sew. 34.
A small stream, less than a river. Baker v. Boston, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 184, 22 Am. Dec. 421; Schermerhorn v. R. Co., 38 N.. Y. 103.
A creek passing through a deep level marsh and navigable by small craft, may, under legislative authority, be obstructed by a dam, or wholly filled up and converted into house lots,—such obstructions not being in conflict with any act of congress regulating com merce; Willson v. Marsh Co., 2 Pet. (U. S.) 245, 7 L. Ed. 412 ; Cora. v. Charlestown, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 180, 11 Am. Dec. 161; Rowe v. Bridge Corp., 21 Pick. (Mass.) 344 ; Charles town v. County Com'rs, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 202 ; Glover v. Powell, 10 N. J. Eq. 211.