The national Republican., 1867-05-01
THE COURTS.

IL TUusbAr, April 80, 1867.
On notion % Mt oConor, Allan A. Burton
esq, Of Kentucky, was admitted an Attorns!
aud counsellor Of this Court:
i, ss s,,,. s,s J, Isss I,ss c.%'y pln's lB Eos1
No. 1917. @. Murzsnmainsr, plaintiff in error
va the State Of Iowa; 4,rnrya YHa,
| No, $685. Adam Bachmsp, plaintiff ID sror
1 va the State Of Iowa;
No. 500. Charlie, BshlOr, plaintiff in error
Il vs.. the State Of Iowa. 81 , gTpis sINI j
No. 400. John Newman, plaintiff in error
vs. the State Of Iowa; so .'i ~
No. 401. Louis stuts, plaintiff In error, vs
the State Of lows, and
| No. 4o2. John Brunslt, plaintiff in error, vs.
the State Of Iowa. r...... .... .,
The eases were submitted to the eonsidsfa
ton Of the Court, on tho record, and priatsi
arguments BY Mr.. Riddle Of counsel for VI,
plaintifs in error and BY Mr.. Cooley Of eounse
for the defendants In error. l| T1'NH HN3
No. 169. Tho Lowell Manufacturing Com
pany, appellants, vs.. The Hartford Carpet Com
pany., The argument Of this cause was oontin
ued BY Mr.. Stoughtou Of counsel for the appel
lants and by Mr.. 0'Conor and Mr.. Clifford O.
counsel for tho appellsss.l Cf. ~'.UIg
Adjourned until tomorrow at ten O'Clock.
Eguity-JHrisdietiOn Of District Court q
make ordsrs in a case Vhieh has pa,sed to IL,
Circuit Court Miiraukee and Minnssota Rail
road Co. %. James r. Sonitey, ct al, survivor.
| Of Greene C.. .Byoason, iecsaisd.-The railroad
company In this case appeal from the order ol
the District Court Of Wisconsin, made In May,
1888, CONFIRMING report Of sale Of the western
division Of the La Crosse and Milwaukee rail
road. being the portion Of the road running from
Portage city to La Crosse, and which the Mil
waukee and St. Paul Railroad Company claimed
to have purchased. 80.
The order Of sale was made by tho Circuit
IL r. Il
the sale was reported by the marshal 10 have
been made by him on tho 25th Of April Thi,
report was made to the District Court. Ercep.
tions were made TO tho report Of the marshal
chiefly on tho ground that the marshal's report
Of sale should have been made to the Circuit
Court, which court had issued the order Of sale,
and not to the District Court, which was without
Jurisdiction 10 make the order
| These exceptions were oyerruled, and the sale
was confirmed and the Marshal directed to make
q deed TO the purchasers. .
| Prior to the act Of July, 1861, tho Circuit
Court system was not extended TO the State Of
Wisconsin, and the District Court had Circui.
Court powers; but by that act such powers were
taken away from the District Courts, the circuit
system being thereby extended to Wisconsin.
By act Of March 8, 1868, II was enacted Chat
in all cases whore the District Court had rem.
dered final Judgments or DEGREES prior to the
passage Of the act Of July, 1869, II should have
power to Issue writs Of execution or other hnal
proceedings, as may be In accordance with law,
to enforce the judgments aforesaid"
Upon this state Of facts, and In view Of this
legislAtion the appellants insist that the District
Court was without authority to make the order,
and that the order has no legal force.
II the order Of sale was valid II was because
the Circuit Court had authority to make It, and
the confirmation must proceed on the same as.
sumption--that Is to say, that the order Of sale
was valid, because the Circuit Court had author.
ity to make 1t. This being conceded, then the
report Of sale should have been made too, and the
confirmation should have been made by the Cir.
cult Court. In tho case Of Bronson vs. The
Railroad, q Wallace, 4O5,) tho single question Of
law involved was disposed Of II was there held
chat the District Court acquired (under the act
Of 1888 only such powers as might be necessary
to insure the execution Of any final process which
1t might issue-that Is to say, snoh powers as
might be necessary to regulate and control Its
officers In the execution Of their ministerial du.
tissi' chat the words Judgments and deoress,'
within the meaning Of this act, were such judg.
ments and DEGREES as disposed Of the whois case,
50 that nothing remained to be done but to issue
final prooess.'n
II was there also held that II anything 70.
mained 10 be done In the cause involving judicial
Judgment, the case goes to the Circuit Court; and
In Blossom vs.. Railroad Il. Wall. $3.50 II 10 hold
that confirmation Of sale 10 an act involving
judicial judgment, from which . party may ap-
peal to this court The District Court could
therefore only enforce DEGREES already made. II
could not make new adjudicstions Of tho rights
OF the parties Tho confirmation Of the sale was
new adjudication. ..' . t. ~
/, The appelles urge that "Hnal decree had
been made, which was to bs executed BY the
sale Of the property before the act Of July, 1862
transferring Jurisdiction TO the Circuit Court
It therefore came within the letter and spirit Of
the LIST Of March, before quoted, The District
Court was the power 10 enforce this decree, and
the return Of the Marshal was therefore correct.
This having been done, that court was the
proper tribunal to confirm the sale.
Henry A. Cram and Caleb Gushing for appel.
lants John W. Cary, and James NJ. Carlisle, for
sPpellees =.
ORPHANS CouRr--Judge Purceu.--Jno.
Furguson was appointed guardian to Belle Fur.
gusOn Lee and Sue II. Lee, orphans Of Henry
and Mary y. Lee, late of Sacramento, Eldorado
Of the West. Bond. $1,000: