The national Republican., 1867-02-05
The Courts.
The Courts. Y
SUPREME CoURr oT lHr UsrIED srArEs.-

II. Lee, ESQ, Il West Virginia. was admitted an
attorney ana counsellor Of this court
On motion Of Charles Eames, Esq., Clarence l..
Burnet, Rsq, Of New York, was admitted an attor.
ney and counsellor Of this court. az
No. S0 The Steam Vessel Moses Taylor, plain
tifs In error, W. Wilson Hammons In error TO the
county court Of the city and county Of San Fran
cisco, State Of California.
Mr. Justice Field delivered the opinion Of the
court, reversing the judgment Of the said county
court In this cause with costs, and remandng the
cause with directions TO dismiss the action for the
want Of Jurisdiction.
No. Ito. Samuel Harlan Of al, appellants, vs..
The United States. Appeal from the Circuit Court
New York ..
Mr.. Justice Davis delivered the opinion Of the
court, affirming the decree Of the said Circuit
Court In this cause. ..r
Ross, Ao., appellants, w. The Corn Exchange In
land Navigation and Fire Insurance. Company.
Appeal from the Circuit Court Of the United States
for the Northern district Of Illinois.
Mr.. Justice Miller delivered the opinion Of the
court, Affirming the decree Of the said Circuit
No. 90. The United States, ex rsl., L. A. Won
Hoffman, plaintiff In error, The City Of Qaincy.
In error 70 the Circuit Court Of the United States
for the Southern District Of Illinois. Mr.. Justice
Swayns delivered the opinion Of the court, revers.
ing the Judgment Of the said circuit court In this
cause. with costs, and remanding the cause for
further proceedings to be had therein, In conform
ity TO the opinion Of this court, ....
No. I16. Albert Z. Goodrich OF al, appellants,
vs.. The City Of Chicago. Appeal from the Circuit
Court Of the United States for the Southern Dis
trict Of Illinois, Mr.. Justice Swayne delivered the
opinion Of the court, affirming the decree Of the
said circuit court In this cause, with costs,
No 80. Tho United States PLAINTIFF in error.
vs.. Mosos Macdonald, 4e. In error TO the Circuit
Court Of the United States for the District Of
NJ Juaftcs nIfNord .r.dN ~. t,ta
Of the court Affirming the judgment Of the said
circuit court In this cause.
No. %. Elisha Evans, plaintiff In error, W. Jas
Patterson. In error 10 the Circuit Court Of tho
United States for the Western District Of Penn
sylvania. Mr.. Justice Grier delivered the opinion
Of tho court, Affirming the Judgment Of the said
circuit court In this cause, with costs.
No. 189. Chas. d. Ssmpls, plaintiff In error, vs.
George Hoger. In error 70 tho Supreme Court Of
the State Of Californis. Mr.. Justice Grier deliv.
cred the opinion Of the court In this cause dismiss.
ing the writ Of error for the want Of Jurisdiction.
No. 81. The United States. PLAINTIFF vs. James
s. P. Hathaway, ct al, on q certificate Of division
In opinion between the judges Of the Circuit Court
Of the United States for the Eastern district Of
Michigan. Mr.. Justice Nelson delivered the opin-
ion Of tho court in this cause, answering the hrst
question certified in the affirmative, which renders
u unnecessary to answer tho remaining two quss.
tions. ....
No. SO. The United States, plaintiffs, vs., Icha.
bod L. Qulmby, on . certificate Of division Of opn.
ion between the judges Of the Circuit Court Of the
United States for the Eastern district Of Michigan
Mr.. Justice Nelson delivered the opinion Of the
court In this cause, answering the frat question
certified In the Affirmative which renders Il unno.
cessary to answer the remaining two questions.
No s5; Ezra s: Stanley, OF al, plaintiff in error,
VS.. Elizabeth j. Colt. In error to the Circuit Court
Of the United States for the district Of Connecticut
Mr.. Justice Nelson delivered the opinion Of the
court, affirming tho judgment Of the said circuit
court In this cause with costs. Dissenting, Mr..
Justice Davis.
No. 1o7. Erastus Sparrow, ct al, PLAINTIFF in
error, vs. Charles L. Strong ct. al In error to the
Supreme Court Of the Territory Of Nevada Mr.
Chief Justice Chase delivered the opinion Of the
court dismissng the writ Of In this cause for
the want Of Jurisdiction and rsmanding the TO
tho Supreme Court Of the State Of Nevada.
No. Ss. The United States, appellants, vs.. The
Steamship Sir VIM. Peel and oargoj and
No. $50. The Steamship Sir VIM Peel and cargo
vs.. The United States. The argument Of this
cause was continued by Mr.. Ashton, Assistant At
tornsy General the counsel for tho United States
and by Mr. Marvin, OF counsel for the claimants.
Adjourned until tomorrow at II O'Clock.
County PO,oers Mandamus 10 Compel the
Levying Of a Tar TO pay a Judgment Obtained on
County Bonds.-Ths Board Of Supeyri,ors of RoeL
hlaHd County, plaintiff IN error, pJ. The UnIted
States, on the relation Of The State Bank-This
cause is here on appeal from judgment Of the
Circuit Court for the Northern District Of illinois,
awarding persmptory writ OF nlandamns against
the plaintiffs In error, To compel the levy Of Q
special tax OF one per cent. upon all the taxable
property in the county Of Rock Island, or 90 much
thereof as might DO necessary TO pay the amount Of
q Judgment, Interest and costs, which the State
Bank held against the Board Of Supervisors Of the
county. ....l .. ..
Tho Board contends that there Is but one mode
known to the laws Of Illinois by which payment
Of Judgment against county can DO ooerced
nd that Ia Inv lhA ami nf ~ -.
from the county authorities upon the county
treasurer. Tho judgment Is Of no higher obliga-
tion, and has no precedence over any other debt
All orders issued upon the treasury are 10 be paid
in the order In which they are presented to the
treasurer, and he Is required to endorse on each
order the time whom II Is presented for payment,
and set aside funds for that purpose.
The statute provides that when any Judgment
shall be rendered against any county, II shall be
tho duty Of the County Commissioner Court to
for the amount Of the judgment and costs, which
warrant shall be paid as other county debts. Moth
ing herein contained shall authorize any execution
to be issued against lands or other property Of any
county Of this State.
This section provides way In which Judgment
may be paid, and as the statute furnishes no other
1t must necessarily be the only mode in which judg
ments can be enforced against II. No i-iustice
can be done the holder Of judgment py REQ uiring
him to pursue this method.
lhe Judgment was hsued upon county bonds,
and while tho defendant In error does not claim
that tho power Is specially given BY the statute to
levy such special tax II Il insisted that the power
to Issue the bonds and coupons necessarily implies
the power to levy special tar to pay them. In
answer % this position II Is said that oountiss like
other municipal corporations, have no powers OF.
cept such as are conferred upon them by law.
The defendant In error submits that there are
but three questions Involved. l. Have the county
funds Mt hand to pay the Judgment 2. If they
have not, have they power to levy tax to raise
such fundsH 8. Ifthey have the power, why have
they not levied such taxH .i'''
The Board admits that II has no funds to pay
the Judgment so the issuance Of o county order,
as suggsEted, would be unayailing. The method
prescribed for paying debts, whom the money 10 at
hand to do II with has nothing to do with the ques
tion Of raising the money to pay them with.
II was the duty, under tho statute Of the super
visors to issue Iuok an order for payment on the
rendition Of the Judgment to obtain the money as
soon as possible and pay It into court, or 10 the
creditor, in satisfaction Of the judgment. They
did not perform this duty. But the issuance Of
such q county order Is not paying tho debt. It
was necessary that tax should be levied, and the
Board had the power TO do so, under tho statute
Of l848 Besides, the act Of l849, under which the
bonds on which the judgment was obtained were
Issued provides that counties subscribing for stock
In aid Of public improvements may borrow money
and pledge tho faith Of tho county for the annual
r s.lAu IL.