The New York herald., 1850-01-28

=
York, and John ", GOOds, Of Mi.sis.ippi were ad-
mitted attorneys and councillors Of this Court No.
Al Adam Mills, plaintiff in error VS.. The County Of
St Clair ct s-Mr Breese in behalf OF the defendant
In error submitted to the court printed argument in
Alexander Neill et alThe argument Of this cause
continued by Messrs Brown and Meredith for the
sppelees and by MI johnson, Attorney General, for
the appellants.
JAN. 22.-NO. "a, Jonathan NJ Reed VS.. The Proprie.
tors Of Lockss Canals on Merrlmsck River-In err.
to the Circuit Court of the United States for assa
chusetts Mr Justice Grier delivered the opinion OF
the csurt affirming the Judgment of said circuit court
In this cause with costs. No 25 Lewis Bis.el VS. Ma
ry B. Penrose-n error to ths Circuit Court Of the
United States for Missouri. Mr. Justice Nelson deli
vered the opinion Of the court Affirming the judgment
OF said circuit court in this cause, with costs. No ST.
John ID. Murrsu ct al appellants VS.. Alexander Nei
Mr johnson, attorney general for the appellants No
3s Thomas Williams, administrator, &c., appellant,
VS.. Benedict Benedct.-Tbis cause was submitted
pellees and argued by Mr. Stanton for the appellant
Ne. 81 Daniel Grove appellant vs John McP Berren,
ct al.-The argument Of this cause commenced by
Mr.. Davis for the appellant.
SUPREME CoURr OF THE UNITED STATES, Jan 23-No.
36-Edmund Caldwell, VS. the United States. In
Eastern Pennsylvania Mr.. Justice Wayne delivered
the opinion OF the Court reversing the Judgment Of
raid Circuit Court in this case, and renanding the
same, with directions to said Circuit Court to
enter a dsaffr nance of the judgment of the Dis
trict Court and to remand the case to said District
Court with directions to that court to award
ae0s de noro and for further proceedings to be hai
therein in conformity to the opinion Of this court
No 80 Daniel Grove, appellant VS. John McP Brieus
executor ct alThe argument of this cause was con.
tinued
JAN. GAG Blight Brown, Esq Of Pennsy lvania
was admitted attorney and counsellor of this
No 50. Daniel Grove, appellant vs.. Robert Gimor's
executors The argument OF this cause was concluded
by Mr. Davis for the appellant No. As John West,
appellant James Smith ct al The argument of this
cause was commenced by Cen Jones for the appellant
and continued by Mr.. Nesle for the appellees.
SUPREME CouRr OF LOUISIANA j. D. Marks, vs. San
Mint I'M aEnfup pt Mar Nnrk
Appeal from the Fourth District Court Of ~ Orleans
clause in policy of insurance to the effect that in
case Of the loss OF the vessel damage to the cargo
that portion which Is saved shsl be forwarded to its
port Of destination. can have application to case
sructve loss by damage Of Fifty per cent will stand
the same footing without this clause and be equal
to the absolute destruction Of the goods in respect
the rights Of the insured to abandon. This is
tion on policy Of insurance merchandise shipped
In New Orleans on board the schooner Virginia. bound
to Matamoras The merchandise was valued by an
endorse nent the policy at IS s65. The schooner
was stranded at the mouth Of the Rio Grande. Her
hold being fun of water the cargo was landed by the
captain in Damaged state, and few days after the
schooner che lay, and the cargo the beach
sold by order Of the captain on account Of the UNDER
writer's The net proceeds of the cargo SO sg4 72
and on the return of the captain TO New Orleans he
paid over to Messrs Gleeson and ves who had effect
ed the insurance the sum of So 200 7s which dis
trbuted by them among the several shippers The
Of 81 s93 o. was received of the present
halt Of the net proceeds alleging that he had paid
the same to Richard Paver, for salvage the cargo
at the place of the wreck. The defendants resisted
this claim fictitious and fraudulent, insisting that
the funds fraudulently retained by the captain
and that the plaintiff must bear his proportion which
Is the OF 81 $50 q. The princi question ap-
pears to be- who is to bear this lossl In the
low the plaintiff had judgment and the underwriters
have appealed
Eusts Chief Justice It Is in evidence that an aban-
doIment Of the merchandise was seasonaby and for
mally made by the plaintiff. The defendants, how
ever contend that the plaintiff had not the right to
make the abandonment under the circumstances of
the case by Of this clause In the policy -" In
of the loss Of the vessel part Of the cargo
be the duty Of the master to forward such parts OF the
cargo sbal be saved In a 1T condition to be shipped
to its port of destination by the best conveyance OBJ
tsipabe, within reasonable distance, and the n
HANGED expense. not exceeding the amount insured,
shall fall the insurers We do not understand this
clause having any effect on the practical construe-
ton Of the policy. In Of the loss of the SHIP
master Is required to forward goods they in safe
ty and IL be reasonable and conveniently practic.
able, though the policy contains such clause But
whether t does or not, have applicati to
Of total destruction Of the goods II be
supposed to sonrolthe technical rule OF constructive
total Ices total loss by damage Of fifty per cent viii
therefore stand on the same footing without this
clause and be equivalent to the absolute destruction
Of the goods In respect to the right OF the insured to
sbsndon. We consider therefore, that ths plaintiff
right to abandon and for total loss s clear
Judgment affirmed with costsN O. Pieayuns, Jan 10.
General Term.