Baltimore daily commercial. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1865-1867, 1866-03-26

TOWSONToWN March 9th, 1866
,, Circuit Court for Bahi@7rs Cosmfg.-Iiel D. c. II.
Emory Judge; john : Eusu. ESQ States Attorney
William Thompson, f., vs. Alexander Murdoch
gonmi sioncr Of state Bounty tor Baltimore county
Do pay said Ih9mpsD1 bpuutrcs alleged to be due And
owing TO said THOMPSON as Attorney OF certain p.,rrg
who enlisted and assigned their State bounty claims
10 sat IhomP5ou. Before reported. His tonor filed
IN opinion that for tAeTga-ua5 set forth "a Ills oIiuioC
ne writ Of lo4rdama5 could not iss.to as f'rayel in
.hat state OF the ileadluEs-
OPINION OF THE 1ouEr.
in tt!5 case ne petitioner states that Philip iar
Eey and LV4n llan having duly enlisted iu The SER
vice Of the United States and having been crrlitcf
2" E3luworg county, became entitled each to the
sum Of three hundred dollars from tho State Of Mary
That the said sums of money were placed in the
hands Of the respondent, as BOUNTY COMMISSIONS
t4r Baltimore County, 10 be paid to the said Philip
Harvey and James Gia1, their respective agents or
That the petitioner holds the power Of tn. sand
gttPcb hTHlrcd a9fi8igG biW to receive the bounty
power Of attorney of James GiLar, authorizing the
,atitioner to receive the bounty Of three hundred
And that the said respondent refuses to pay said
sums OF money SO que ana IN ms hand5 as aforesaid to
me petitioner. Inc respondent admits the claims OF
Philip Harvey and James Gillian, and that the said
counties of three hundred dollars each were paid into
MS hands as Bounty Commissioner of the State of
Maryland for Baltimore county. and that the money
is deposited in bank to be paid to the said parties re-
,pectivcly or their respective agent or 9tf5~nev
that the petitioner has made demand for t he pay
ment Of said bounties, claiming the right to receive
ne same BY virtue Of two powers OF attorney. But
tce from other persons making claim to the said
counties by virtue Of other powers of attorney which
they profess to have, &c.
Among other objections to the Iaandamus prayed
for by the petitioner tho respondent urges that said
pOuHticS being those Of two separate soldiers and the
petitioner ne be their attorney, being such by sep
arate powers OF attorney from each, the said claims
tor the payment OF winch the nandamuS Is prayed
on separate claims arc not legally the subject of
and the same mandamus.
More th@n %n99 person cannot nave one writ of
mandamus. Judge Legrand. in Smith ct al, VS..
Erb ct al ~ Gill, page i5l md the cases then re-
One writ OF mandamus cannot issue for the en-
.oreemeut Of separate claims" Step. A. P, 2,33.
smith. &c, vs.. krb, &C., " Gill 46U.
But the counsel for the petitioner, without ques-
lonlng the principle of law, replies in his argument
that here is bu. one claim and but one claimant.
That the petitioner is the owner of the two claims
md the payment to the two volunteers And that he
stands in relation to these two claims endorser
Him by two separate and distinct prayers; and .hat
although the two prayers could not Join the tvs notes
one action in their joint names, that the endorsed
an include Doth notes IN one action. The cases are
not analogous. They are governed Wy entirely diff
trent principles. In the case now under considera-
ion there two separate and distinct persons en-
itIed to separate and distinct hounties. These
pounues nave been separately handed over to the
respondent as Bounty Commissioner, to be paid re-
.pCctSey TO the said volunteers or their respective
lgent or attorney.
The petitioner claims as agent or attorney of the
respective partieS-E0t assignee, The act of the
General Assembly of Maryland granting the bountes
directs the payment to be made TO the party h agent
i0ner is directed to pay to the party his agent
attorney.
The petitioner demands the payment of the bounty
due to Philip Harvey, by virtue of power of attor
ey from Philip Harvey for the of Philip Harvey,
and so of James Glian. What becomes of the money
ahen il gets his hands, who is then entitled to
H. the petition does not disclose, although the eYi
fence does.
Being of opinion, for these reasons, that the peti-
0ner is not entitled to the maudamus as prayed |
eem it unnecessary to refer to the various other OBJ
ctiOns and the other questions discussed III the ar
rIment.
The mandamus will therefore be refused
D. c. II. EMORY
The petitioner then asked leave to amend his pe-
sition which was granted. and the case so amended
Tas Submitted to His Honor without argument Hold
#ib CuTIa.
Another petition was filed this morning by f. P.
stevcnS, Esq.s who claims the same sum AS attor-
cy ior Philip Harvey, the party who enlisted. No
&c was given by John 1. Ensor, Esq as attorney
or William Cotton y Co., OF his intention to file a
HetIuon for them Tor same sum- who also claim at
.1rneys OF sand Philip Harvey. Messrs. 4. II. Boar
ran aud WIN. ). Bryan for Thompson petitioner,
Archibald Stirling, Esq, for Murdoch respondent.
John Thomas UppercOO VS. John Thomas Uppe.-
90 and Thomas . UpperCoo. Bill Tor sale OF Ger ain
sal estate, and to set aside lease on the Eolnd Of
traud. Not concluded. r. h. Boarman' .4sq., for
complainant, john I. Ensor, ESD, for defendant.
houas s. Uppercoo. The Grand Jury was finally
,ischarged this morning, with the thanks of the
,onrt far their attendance. Court adjourned until
sTnnlav mornng at 10 0 clock,