The national Republican., 1867-05-11
THE COURTS.

lOUFREME The UNITED
ThuRsDAI, May 10, 1867.
On motion Of Hon. Caleb Gushing, Alfred D
Ely and A. J. cashman, esqs., Of Massaohusetts
and Thomas x. King, esq, Of Rhode Island
were admitted sttornsys and counssllors Of mi
court "a
On motion Of Hon. ], 8, Black, Henry Beard
esq Of the District of Ooipmbis, was admitted
an attorney and oouussllor of this court. "
On motion Of Mr.. Cariisle, VIM. J. Miller
ESQ, Of the District Of Columbia, was admitted
an attorney and counsellor Of this ooart.
No. 10, (0hgingi) Tho Milwaukee and Mime.
sofa Railroad Compaay, petitioner, W. III,
Judges Of Ne cirouit Court Of the United Btatei
for the district Of Wisconsin. Tho motion for
leave TO file stipulation In this ease was argued
BY Mr. Cary in support Of the SANG, and by Mr..
orsn ain and MT; Cushing Eh = ORpG;i,''r thereto:
tisnsrs, W. M. A. r. De Poll. Petition for q pre-.
emptory psandamHs. Tho argument on the 70.
turn Of the district Judge In this case was com.
menced by Mr.. Ashton, assistant attorney gen.
eral, for the United States, eontinued by Mr..
Black in support Of the return, and eoncludsd BY
Mr.. Wills for tho United States.
No. Is, (originai) Er pdrts. The Milwaukee
and Minnesota Railroad Company, petitioners.
on Stss sdissrict Judge q the Uni,ed States for
tho district Of Wisconsin was commenced BY Mr..
Cushing in .sppport thereof, oontinusd BY Mr..
pary " oppssiiisn 70 ths ssas, snd eopciudsd
BY Nj Craih ii support o. The petition. ~
No. lsI. james b. Townsend ct al, plaintiffs
in srrob ", Calsb BaIbant, Thh cause Eas
submittsd tci The considsration of the court on
u The record and I'd Bss.sS y m z ETIs
Stewart Of counsel for tho dsf,pisns in error. :
No. ls2. The Milwaukee and 81 Paul Rsii.
road Company, appellants, vs. James I. Soutter,
survivor. &c., and l|..t
No. 2i7 Same vs. Same. Tho arguments Of
these causes was commenced BY Mr.. Cary Of
counsel for the appellants. -.
Adjourned until Monday at ll..o'elock a. m.
The Legal 7snds, QHe'tion-Spec,ai DtpO'it,
in Coin before tie Wdr-Were they Discharged
BY Payment IN Lsgai Isndsts-EUideaee- Con-
traet-John w. and Wm. IhOmp,On, Plaintiff
in Error, vs. George W. Riggs and Rieekhoetsr.
This was an action Of special assumpsit, by which
tine PLAINTIFF seek to recover the value Of what
they allege TO be special contract for the deposit
Of coin. The facts show that, In 1861, Riggs 4
Co. were bankers In the city Of Washington; that
tho plaintiffs were business men, and had their
bank account with tho defendants; and that dur.
ing the period Of these relations OF the parties,
In the summer Of that year, the bank currency
used in tho business OF the District Of Columbia
began to lose lie credit and public confidence and
fell below par, making coin, as q circulating me.
dium, represent ono value and bank currency m.
other. To accommodate the relations Of the bank
to the business Of the District, the defendants as
alleged, in common with the other banks and
bankers Of the District, adjusted their books and
bank relations accordingly, keeping a coin no-
count to be responded to In coin and currency
account to be responded to In paper.
Tho plaintiffs were depositors with tho defend
ants In the sum Of $4,000, 81, 500 Of which was
In currency and they were notified by defend
ants that they would hold the bank responsible
in coin for the entire amount Of their deposit,
they must convert the paper into coin. The dc.
fendants' request was complied with, and the
entire deposit was converted into coin. Thus
matters stood until February, 1862, when the
act Of Congress making Treasury notes a legal
tender in payment Of all debts was passed. Tho
contract then by express stipulations as claimed,
was that the deposit in coin should be paid In
coin.
On tho trial the court excluded proof offered
by plaintiffs Of the uniform custom Of all the
banks Of the District Of Columbia going to show
that the special relation Of depositors to the
bankers in the District was to receive back their
deposits In kind; coin In return for coin de-
posted, and bank paper In return for bank paper
deposited To ths ruling exception was taken
The jury was instructed as follows:
"If the Jury fnd from the evidence that tho
defendants were bankers In the years 1861 and
1852 and that the coin mentioned In the deela-
ration was deposited with them as bankers, TO be
repaid in coin. the deposit created q debt from
the defendants 10 the plaintiffs which could be
by payment or offer 10 pay the same
in legal tender notes. and II the jury further nd
that said tender was made, tho plaintiffs are not
entitled to recover In tho action" To this
charge exception was also taken, and upon these
exceptions, the verdict being for the defendants
the case was taken to the general term Of the
court, the Supreme Court Of the District, whore
the Judgment below was affirmed, Chief Justice
Cartier dissenting.
The cause now comes here on these three
points: That Of evidence, the effect Of the special
contract and on the question Of the constitu-
tionality Of the legal tender act.
Nathaniel Wilson and Joseph II. Bradley for
plaintiffs; W. s. Cox and ]. NJ. Carlisle for do.
PENDANTS.