Volume 91 — United States Reports

<p>Error feo the Court of Common Pleás for the County of Richland, State of Ohio.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>1. Contracts made during the war in one of the Confederate States, payable in Confederate currency, but not designed in their origin to aid the insurrectionary government, are not, because thus payable, invalid between the parties.</p> <p>2. In actions upon such contracts, evidence as to the value of that currency at the time and in the locality where the contracts' were made is admissible.</p> <p>3. ' A statute of North Carolina of March, 1866, enacting that in all civil actions “ for debts contracted during the late war, in which the nature of the obligation is not set forth, nor the value of the property for which such debts were created is stated, it shall be admissible for either party to show on. the trial,- by affidavit or otherwise, what was the consideration of the contract, and that the jury, in making up their verdict, shall take the same into consideration, and determine the value' of said contract in present currency in the particular locality in which it is to be performed, and render their verdict accordingly,” in so far as the same authorizes the jury in such actions, upon the evidence thus before them, to place their own estimate upon the value of the contracts, instead of taking the value stipulated by the parties, impairs the obligation of such contracts, and is, therefore, within tlie inhibition upon the State of the Eederal Constitution. Accordingly, in an action upon a contract for wood sold in that State during the war, at a price payable in Confederate currency, an instruction of the,court to the jury, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the value of the wood without reference to the value of the currency stipulated, was erroneous.</p>

■ Error - to the Court of Common Pleas for the City and County of New York. The original cause of action was {inter alia) an acceptance of a bill of exchange by the firm of Brander, Chambliss, & Co.; of New Orleans, dated April 23,1861, payable in; one year to-the order of McStea, and accepted on the day of its date by" the firm, whereof Matthews, it was alleged, was then á member.

Held: that the plea was defective for not setting forth the laws or usages of Turkey upon which, by the treaty and act of Congress conferring the jurisdiction, the latter was made to depend, and which alone would show its precise extent, and that it embraced the case in question. Error to tbe Supreme Court of tbe District of Columbia.

<p>1. The power of amending a writ of error returnable to the Circuit- Court is vested in that court as fully as it is in the Supreme Court on writs of error returnable to it.</p> <p>2. The judgment of the Circuit Couyt ought not to be reversed for defects of form in the process returnable on error to that court, which are amendable by the express words of an act of Congress.</p> <p>•3. The proclamation of the President of the United States,-bearing date Sept. 7, Í 867, did not work the dismissal of legal proceedings against property seized under the confiscation act of July 17, 1863, or provide for the restoration of all rights of property to persons e'ngaged in the rebellion.</p> <p>4. Property so seized became the property of the United States from the date of the d'ecree of condemnation.'</p> <p>& The writ of error vested the Circuit Court with complete jurisdiction; and that court having reversed the second decree of the District Court, dismissing the libel, and adjudged that the first decree condemning the property should remain in full force, might “ proceed to pass such decree as should have been passed” by the subordinate court; and, if a decree confirming the sale of the property was necessary, it was entirely competent for the Circuit Court to pass it.</p>

Held: that as the proceedings of the commanding general and the commis *28 sioners constituted “ superior force,” which no prudent administrator of the affairs of a corporation .could'resist, the hank was neither responsible, for those proceedings, nor for a loss thereby occasioned. ■ Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana. - The facts are stated in the

The facts are stated in the.opinion of the court.. The real question presented in this case is, whether the discount of a- note by a national bank, — organized under the act of Congress, approved June 3, 1864, — at a greater rate of interest than allowed by the statute of the State where such bank is located, renders it liable to the penalty for usury provided by the State statute.

Piper filed a bill to enjoin Brown and Seavey from infringing two patents, one of which, not being insisted on at the hearing, need not be considered. .

Held: that the plaintiff was entitled to the opinion of the jury on that preeise question. Error ’’to tbe Circuit Court of tbe United States for tbe District of Iowa. Tbe facts are stated in tbe

Held: that the order was conclusive as to-the right of the assignee to bring-suit to enforce such payment. 2. The court pronouncing the decree of bankruptcy had jurisdiction and authority to make the order; and it was not necessary that the stockholders should ' -' have received actual notice of the application ther.efor.

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.</p>

<p>Error to tbe Circuit Court of tbe United States for tbe Northern District of Illinois.</p> <p>Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.</p>

Held: upon consideration of said sections, of the scheme of said original act, and of the purposes contemplated by it, that it was not the intention of Congress to require' the compand to pay the interest before the maturity of the principal' of the bonds. 2. 'As commonly understood, the word “ maturity,” in its application to bonds and other similar instruments, applies to the time fixed for their payment, which is the…

Held: that, in the absence of any instructions to the contrary, the defendants were not bound to retain the bill of lading until payment of the draft by.B., but were right in giving it up to him on obtaining his acceptance. This case was reviewed in 1863 in the Court of Error and Appeals, and the' judgment affirmed. 2 Upper Canada Error and Appeal Reps. 282. See also Goodenough v. The City Bank, 10 Upper Canada Com.

Held: the Bankruptcy Court will not interfere with property in the possession of receivers, and the mere fact of their appointment puts them in possession, it will' be an easy matter to avoid the operation of that law, or make proceedings under it a solemn farce, by simply suing the debtor, and procuring the appointment of a receiver of his property.

Held: that a chattel mortgage, taken within that period of time by. a creditor in exchange for a prior valid bill of sale of the same property, and recorded pursuant to the laws of the State where> the transaction took place before any rights of the assignees in bankruptcy accrued, cannot be impeached by them as a fraudulent preference within the meaning of that act.- •• - ' -• *115 Appeal from the Circuit Court of the…

Held: Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivering its opinion, that, the husband at the time being free from debt, the conveyance to the wife was to be deemed a voluntary settlement upon her, which, hot being made with any fraudulent intent, was operative and binding against subsequent creditors; and that the *126 improvements upon tne property stood upon the same footing as the conveyance itself, they being made before the…

<p>■Error to the Supreme Court of tbe District of Columbia.</p> <p>The facts are' stated in tbe opinion of the court.</p>

Held: that the agreement constituted a'partnersliip. 2.

Held: that the judgment of the Supreme Court is final within'the meaning . of the act of Congress, and that the writ of error was properly directed to that court. 3. Under the authority of sect. 1006 of the' Revised Statutes, a writ of error may he- amended by inserting the proper return day. Motion to dismiss a writ, of error to the Supreme Court of the State of California.

Appear from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey. On motion.

C. Sanford, alleging an infringement of a patent to Sanford for an improvement in refrigerators. The principal defence relied upon was the prior invention of Lyman. The Circuit Court, sustained this defence, and dismissed the bill. From this decree the complainant appealed.

Held: in- direct line with the decision in Thompson v. Whitman, that the record of a judgment showing service of process on the defendant could be contradicted and disproved.

This suit was brought by Jones, assignee of Winslow? against Clark, and revived after Ms death, against Sewáll, his administrator. Jones alleged that Clark had infringed certain patents for an improvement in preserving Indian com, granted to Wins-low ; and he prayed for an injunction and an account. A decree was rendered for the complainant. . The defendant appealed.

Held: That the descending steamer had the right to assume that the sailing vessel would hold her westerly course, and that she was in the right in shaping her course to the east for • the purpose of passing the sailing vessel; and that a subsequent change of the course of the sailing vessel to the east when within three hundred feet of the descending steamer was unjustifiable, and that the collision resulting therefrom…

Held: that the decree was correct; and that, although such notes were exempt from taxation by or under state or municipal authority, a court of equity would not use its extraordinary powers to promote such a scheme devised for the purpose of enabling a party to escape his proportionate share of the burdens of taxation. Error to tbe Supreme Court of Kansas.

Held: that it was the duty of the sailing, vessel, in view of the special circumstances, to put up her helm and go-to the right, or to.’.put it down and suffer the steam-tug to drift past in safety; and, both vessels being at ’fault, the damages were equally apportioned between them. 3- The doctrine announced in The Continental, 14 Wall. 345 , reaffirmed.

Held: that, inasmuch as the words alleged imputed a criminal offence which subjected the party to punishment involving disgrace, the words were actionable; and it is not doubted that the decision is correct. Exactly the same question was decided by the same court in the same way twenty-five years later. Kenney v. Laughlin, 3 Gray, 5 ; 1 Stat. Mass. 1786, 293.

Held: that where'a sheriff sells real estate, giving to the purchaser a.certificate thereof, although there can lawfully be no sale unless - there be a previous judgment, and although the sale is based upon and assumes such judgment, and although the law requires the sheriff to give such certificate, the recital by the sheriff of such judgment furnishes no evidence thereof.

Held: that the decree was. not final, and that no appeal would , therefrom to this court. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. On the 7th June, 1872, a decree was rendered, by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in a suit in equity between Horace S. Johnston, plaintiff, and George Usher, defendant, directing a sale of certain lands, the property of Usher.

Held: that the bill, although returned with the record, cannot be, considered here as a part thereof. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The parties to this suit, by stipulation in writing filed with the clerk, waived a jury, .and submitted to a trial by the court, which was had at the October Term, A. D. 1872, when the case was taken under advisement.

Wright, the defendant below, a licensed trader in the Choctaw country at the commencement of the .rebellion, claimed that he had sustained large losses by the use of his property by the Choctaw nation, and that large sums were due to him for goods taken by or sold to members of the nation, and for money advanced to it.

Celia A. Groves of Madison Parish, Louisiana, by her will, dated the 27th of January, 1872, among other things, bequeathed 'to the Baptist church in the city of Vicksburg, the plantation on which she lived, except one hundred and fifty acres, which were designated; and expressed a desire that the church should hold it, and not sell it, and that the proceeds should be employed to educare young men for the ministry.

Held: that on the refusal of the owner so to convey, .or in lieu thereof to pay for such materials, the party is entitled to his lien, provided that in due time he gives'the notice required by law. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

A contract was entered into between the United States and the claimants for the transportation of military stores and supplies on Route No. 1, west of the Missouri River, the naaterial provisions of which are-as follows: — Article 1.

This was a suit to recover the sum of $5,780 on account of cotton seized by the United States. The court below found that the petitioner, a British subject, OAvned and was possessed of 26-| bales of cotton stored in a ware- • house in St. Joseph’s, in the State of Louisiana.

Held: that, when the importer had so acted upon the thing imported that it had become incorporated and mixed up with the mass of property in the country, it had lost its distinctive character as an import, and become subject to the taxing power of the State; but that, while remaining the property of the importer in his warehouse in the original form and package in which it was imported, the tax upon it was plainly a duty…

The State of Georgia, sole owner oí the Western and Atlantic Railroad, desiring the use of a telegraph for the purposes of the road along its line, an instrument of writing providing therefor, bearing date Aug. 18,1870, signed by William Orton, president, on behalf of the Western Union Telegraph Company, and by Foster Blodgett, superintendent of the railroad, was approved by Rufus B. Bullock, governor, and countersigned by II. C. Carsen, secretary of the executive department.

<p>Li the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake, the rule is the same in equity as at law, that parol evidence of an oral agreement alleged to have been made at the time, of the drawing, making, or indorsing a bill or note, cannot be permitted to vary, qualify, or contradict, or to add to or subtract from, the absolute terms of the written contract..</p>

Held: that the plaintiff .was entitled to recover only nominal damages. *295 2. Where a judgment is described in the declaration as having been rendered in the Circuit Court for the District of Wisconsin, a judgment of the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin is not admissible in evidence under the plea of nul tiel record. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Wisconsin.

This was a suit brought by Allison, an employé in the government printing-office, for additional compensation under the joint resolution of Congress' approved Feb. 28,1867 (14 Stat. 569).

Held: that as the attorney was the agent of the collection agency which employed him, and not of the creditors, his knowledge of the insolvency of the debtor was not chargeable to them in such sense as .to render them liable to the assignee in bankruptcy for the money collected on the judgment. Qucere, would they have been so liable had the money reached their hands ? Error to the Supreme Court of tbe State of New York.

<p>Appeal from the Court of Claims.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>The facts upon which the decision of the court rests are set forth in its opinion.</p>

Held: that-the order of the Commissioner was in effect a decision that the hides were required for the comfort of the Indians, and excused the United States from delivery to the contractor. 2.

Held: or rather implied, by the decision in the case of Foley v. Harrison, reported in .the 15th of .Howard, the same result must follow if the land were not at the time open to selection. If not thus open,- the .whole proceeding on the part of McPherson and the governor of the State to appropriate the land was ineffectual for any purpose. That the land was not thus open, we think. there is no doubt.

Held: that C., inasmuch as the judgment was not a lien upon the lands, nor binding in any sense upon him, could not sustain a hill in chancery to set it aside. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi. The facts are stated in the

<p>1. The initial point of the Iowa branch of the' Union Pacific Railroad was fixed by the act of Congress of July 1, 1862 (12 Stat. 489), on the Iowa bank of the Missouri River.</p> <p>2. The order of the President of the United States, bearing date the seventh day of March, 1864, established and designated in strict conformity to law the eastern terminus of said branch at a point “ on the western boundary of Iowa east of and opposite to the east line of section 10, in township 15, north of range 13, east of the 6th principal meridian, in the Territory of Nebraska.”</p> <p>3. The bridge constructed by the Union Pacific Railroad Company over the Missouri River, between Omaha in Nebraska and Council- Bluffs in Iowa, is a part of the railroad. The company was authorized to build it only for the uses of the road, and is bound to operate and run the whole road, in.cluding the bridge, as one connected and continuous line.</p> <p>4. Private persons may, without the intervention of the government law-officer, move for a mandamus to enforce a public duty not due to the government as such.</p>

<p>Error to the. Supreme Court of the State of New York.</p>

Held: after a very elaborate examination of the subject, that, according to the laws of.

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of the Unitéd abates for the ■ Southern District of New York. \</p>

Held: that, the amount in controversy in the Circuit Court and here being but $500, the appeal must be dismissed.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana.</p> <p>The decree of the Circuit Court in this case was signed Feb. 13, 1874. An appeal was taken therefrom, and the record filed here on the thirteenth day of the following October.</p> <p>filed á certified copy of tbe order of tbe said Circuit Court, bearing date June 1, 1875, for a commission to take tbe deposition of certain witnesses to be used bere, and moved tbat tbe depositions taken thereunder be made a part of tbe record.</p>

Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367 (1875), was a court case that took place in the Supreme Court of the United States. It invoked the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and is related to the issue of eminent domain.

Held: that, as no Eederal question arose, this court has no jurisdiction. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of California. This is an action of ejectment, commenced in the District' Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of California.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Held: that the payment by him therefor did not, without the further order of the Secretary of the Treasury, retire them. Until such ■ order be given, or until it ought to have been given, the government does not accept the notes as genuine. 2.

Held: that the validity of such acceptance was to be determined by the law of Illinois. 2. In Illinois; a parol acceptance of a bill of exchange is valid, and á parol promise to accept it is an acceptance thereof. 3. Matters bearing upon the execution, interpretation, and validity of a contract are determined by the law of the place where it is made.

Held: that upon the hypothesis of the case submitted to the jury in the charge of the court, the evidence becoming immaterial, an exception to its admission was properly overruled. 2. Instructions given by the court are entitled to a reasonable interpretation, and are not, as a general rule, to be regarded as the subject of error, on account of omissions not pointed out by the excepting party.

Held: that the court below is precluded from adjudging in favor of the defendants upon the facts set forth in that finding, but can in all other respects proceed in such manner as, in its opinion, justice may require. *424 French sued Edwards and others to recover the possession of certain lands, alleging that he was the owner in fee, and that the defendants unlawfully withheld the possession from him.

Held: that the declarations *427 of the bankrupt at and prior to the time of such payment, although made in the absence and without the knowledge of the creditor, were, when offered-by the assignee, admissible in evidence., 2.

Held: that the aeV removes the bar of the lapse of time; and that, as the case is like those in which interest was to be allowed by the fifth section of the act of Aug. 5, 1790 ( 1 Stat. 178 ), the claimants are entitled to recover the principal-sum, with interest thereon. *443 Appeal from the Court of Claims.

<p>This court is bound to follow the courts of the State of Connecticut in their uniform decisions, in construing the recording acts of that State, that a mortgage must truly describe the debt intended to be secured; and that it is not sufficient that the debt be of such a character that it might have been secured by the mortgage had it been truly described.</p>

Held: that the phrase “ along its route ” means in proximity to the rails upon which the locomotive-engines run; and that the corporation is liable for Such an injury to buildings or other property along its route, whether they are outside of the lines of its roadway, or lawfully ■ within those lines. 4.

Held: it would seem, that the conditions attached to the pardon precluded the petitioner from seeking to obtain the proceeds .of his property: but the Circuit Court was of opinion that, the effect of, a pardon was to restore to its recipient all rights, of property lost by the offence pardoned, unless the property had^ by judicial process, become vested in other, persons, subject to such exceptions as were prescribed by…

Arpe at, from tbe Circuit Court of tbe United States for the Northern District of Georgia.

Held: that the judgment of such Supreme Court was not final, and' that the writ of error must be dismissed. *488 Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. This action was brought upon a bond given to release the steamboat.“ Frolic ” from a provisional seizure. The defend.ants answered the petition Nov. 25, 1870, setting up several defences, and, Dec. 5,1870, filed a peremptory excéption.

This action against the railroad company to recover damages for injuries received .by Mrs. Arms, by reason of a collision of a train of cars with another train, resulted in a verdict and judgment for $4,000.

Tbe plaintiff in tbe court below is assignee in bankruptcy of Bogen and others, appointed in proceedings instituted against them in tbe District Court of 'the United States for tbe Southern District of Ohio; tbe defendants are assignees of tbe same parties, under the assignment law of the State of Ohio; and the present suit is brought to. obtain possession of property which, passed to the latter under the assignment to them.

Held: that a notice posted upon a house seven months after it had been vacated by the defendant and his family, and while they were residing within the Confederate lines,- was not posted upon his “ usual place of abode,” and that a judgment founded on such defective notice was absolutely void. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia. Mr. S. F. Beach for the appellants.

Held: that the company was not liable if the. statements made by the insured were not true. 2. The agreement of the parties that the statements were absolutely true, and that their falsity in any respect should void the policy, removes the question of their materiality from the consideration of the court or jury. Error to the Circuit .Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

<p>Appeal from tbe Circuit Court of the United States for tbe Eastern District of Pennsylvania.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Colorado.</p>

This was an action brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant to recover the amount of a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of the State of New York in favor of the plaintiff’s testator against the defendant corporation. The defendant pleaded in bar a judgment in its.favor on demurrer to the declaration, in a suit brought on the same cause-qf action in the Knox Circuit Court of Indiana.

Held: that, where a judgment against the town was rendered hy a court having jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter, auditing it is a mere ministerial act not involving the -exercise of official’discretion, the performance of Which can, he coerced hy mandamus. ■Error to tbe Circuit Court of tbe United States for tbe Northern District of Illinois.

Held: that the board of public works is not an indepehdent body acting for itself,' but is a part of the municipal corpora-, tion ; and that thé'District of Columbia is responsible-to an individual who has suffered injury from the defective and .negligent condition of its streets. •Held further, that a municipal corporation, holding a voluntary charter as a .city or village, is responsible for its mere negligence in the…

<p>Ebbob to The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.</p>

<p>Ebbob to The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.</p>

<p>This case came up on a certificate of division between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.</p>

<p>1. The twenty-fifth section of the act of June 30,1864 (13 Stat.'231)., ¡authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to make, in his discretion, just and reasonable allowances to collectors of internal revenue, in addition to their salaries, commissions, and certain necessary .charges. A -claim for such allowances, unless it be sanctioned by him, cannot be admitted -by the .accounting officers of the treasury.</p> <p>2. In a suit on the official bond of a collector of internal revenue to recover a balance found to be due from him to the United States on a settlement -of his accounts by the accounting officers; items of set-off for his extra services and .expenses were properly excluded.</p>

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota.</p>

<p>. On a certificate of division'in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.</p>

Held: -that the words “manufactures of metals ” refer to manufactured articles in which metals form a component part, and not to articles in which ■ they have lost their form entirely, and have become the chemical ingredients of new forms. 2. White lead, nitrate of lead, oxide of zinc, and-dry and orange mineral, are not ...... — manufactures of-metals within the meaning of that act.

<p>Appeal from the Court of Claims.</p>

<p>This court has no jurisdiction to re-examine the judgment of a State court where a Eederal question was not in fact passed upon, and where a decision of it was rendered unnecessary in the view which the court below took of the ease.</p>

<p>If the proper officer gives a permit for the erection of certain specially described buildings in Washington City, a clear case of danger to the public safety, or of departure from the permit, must be made before the party acting under it can be arrested midway in the construction of them, and required to remove them.</p>

<p>1. - The entry of a judgment, “that the suit is not prosecuted, and be dismissed,” is nothing more than the record of a nonsuit.</p> <p>2. The words “dismissed agreed,” entered as the judgment of a court, do not of themselves import an agreement to terminate the controversy, nor imply an intention to merge the cause of action in the judgment.</p> <p>3. If the agreement under which the suit was dismissed settled or released the matter in controversy, that fact must- be shown by the plea .to render it available-as a bar to a second suit in respect of the same matter.</p>

Held: that the court below properly dismissed the bill of complaint of the corporation, praying that the purchaser should be decreed to hold as its trustee, and to account for the profits during the time he had the property. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. Mr. J. I). McPherson and Mr. Charles Beasten, Jr., for the appellants. Mr. Walter 8. Cox and Mr. W. B. Bavidge for the appellee.

<p>This court has no jurisdiction to re-examine the judgment or decree of a State . court, unless it.appears-from the record that a Federal question presented to that" court was in fact decided, or that the decision was necessarily involved in the judgmefit or decree as rendered.</p>

Held: that B. was entitled to recover on his contract the value of the work done' and materials, furnished by him, if he substantially complied with the plans and specifications, or a strict compliance therewith had been waived by A., although the supervisors, in the • exercise of the power reserved in their contract with A., condemned B.’s • work, and required A. to replace apportion of it. 2.

Held: that, at least until after a regular demand was made, those .who received the earnings were not bound to account for them. See also The City of Bath v. Miller, 51 Me. 341 ; Noyes, Receiver, v. Rich, 52 id. 115. Upon both reason and authority, we think the appellants have no right to the fund in controversy. Decree affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

Held: that such proprietor, although the drawee of the draft, acknowledged, by the act.of receiving the wheat, that it was not placed in his hands as the owner thereof, - and that the title of the bailors was not transferred.. 5.

<p>Appeal from tbe Circuit Court of tbe United States for tbe Eastern District of Virginia.</p>

<p>A court of equity is not bound to shut its eyes to the evident character of a transaction .where its aid is sought to carry into effect an unconscionable bargain, but will leave the party to his remedy at law.</p>

Held: That the declaration of B. was sufficient on demurrer, as it averred, in substance, that from the time he entered upon the performance of the contract in July, 1872, until the fifteenth day of December of that year, when A. wholly failed to make the stipulated payment for the work then actually done, he, with a large force and with suitable equipments along the whole line of the road, had prosecuted the work with…

Held: and, it having been ascertained to the satisfaction of the meeting that the corporation was insolvent, it was votfed and resolved, by a majority of the .trustees present, that the .president of' the company be required to file a petition in the District Court, that the corporation may be adjudged bankrupt.

Held: First, That the State has a direct interest in the railroad by reason of holding the |4,OOP,000 of bonds, which were a statutory lien on the road.

<p>On motion to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana.</p>

Held: that the propeller was responsible for the disaster. 2.

This case was tried upon tbe following agreed statement of facts:— First, “ That tbe plaintiffs, from tbe first day of April, 1865, to. tbe first day of May, 1866, were copartners in the city of New York, doing business under tbe firm name of ‘ John Warren & Son.-’ ” •Second, That, during sucb time, tbe plaintiffs, as sucb copartners, bad a place of business in tbe thirty-second collection .district of New York, where credits were opened by tbe deposit and collection of…

<p>Ebeoe to the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina. '</p>

Held: '■ that the bankruptcy or insolvency of A. terminated all liis legal vested right *717 in the estate, and left nothing in him to which his creditors or his assignee in bankruptcy could assert a valid claim. Held, further, that a payment volun- ' tarily made to A., after his bankruptcy, by the trustees under the terms of the discretion reposed in them cannot be subjected to the control of his assignee. 8.