The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1868-05-12

] THE COURTS.
SUPREME CouRT IN GENERAL TkRS-Ali
the JUSTICE, sat N ssne yesterday, and consid-
NEW REersrER or ELECTION.
The following communication was submitted
,wAsHIsoros, Dc, Nay II, 1885.
r. "a p hSnSra ~ yiaSs he Supreme coar' Of
GKsTLsMES; have the honor to tender my
resignation as a member Of the Board Of Regis
trstion or Judges Of Elections OF this city, to
Hsyins Se accepted s he nomination a. a c.ndi.
date for once, to be voted for at the coming
election, cannot conscientiously continue
longer to discharge the duties that have de.
THANKING you for the honor done me 10 Civ.
ing me the appointment, I am, gentlemen,
truly and sincerely, yours, se.,s ,
Justice Cartier stated that the Court concur
in the opinion OF MI. Bowen, and do accept
HI, resignation, and appoint William A. Cook
IN re. Estate Of Sarah Edelin,. Mr.. Merrick
hles . motion for q rehearing.
Paul vs.. Smith, Equity, calendar.) Order
Of court below affirmed with the assent OF the
APPLICANTS ron ADMISSION TO TIE OAR.
On the motion Of Mr.. Riddle, Messrs. Riddle,
Carusi and Cox were appointed examiners Of
.y p.vrs snS o al we're FERRY
pointed examiner o. Edw. Z. Price"spp 4.
cants for admission to the bar.
THE BLANK CHECK CASE.
A. X. Browne, executor of Richard Bus.
teed, vs. Helen R. Reed. Ordered to be placed
on the calendar. This 10 an appeal from Judge
Pureslps decision IN the Orphans. Court, CIV.
OF which Busted had, shortly before his
death, deposited in Baltimore bank. and for
which he had, on his death bed, given Miss
s.nSins IL ssne to Be USED in ehsefin9 out ,u
HgiSna Is. Savage. Thi. case 1. a. follow. /.
AZ 4. - 49, -. l.Al L.
square a1I, for which Hyiand's ancestor was
In default for taxes. Morgan improved the
lot, and sold TO- Savage, who added several
the property. 1t turned out, however, that
the tax title was not well made, and the lot
was recovered from Savage's tenant In an ao-
obtained Sa possession Of the lot Sroush. an az.
tion for mssne prohts. Savage filed several
pleas, among them: "thst the plaintiffs were
e n, S 1 ths
Court below allowed the defendant to show
| the value Of all improvements made to the
property since the tax sale, and allowed to
land since 1t came into his possession. the
value Of such improvements"
The plaintiifs excepted to this ruling and
| carried the case to the court in bdnc, contend
ing that; LIST, Savage was not bona fde
possessor, entitled to recoup his improve
ments, because he had constructive notice Of
tax title OF his vender which was now on Its
face and could not give even color title. I'd.
| That the value fthe improvements, ifAllowed,
should be appropriated to extinguish the de.
PENDANTS liability for the rents first received
by him. Sd. That Savage had no right to re-
coup for so much OF the improvements as were
made by Morgan. 9TH. That the recoupment
should cover only the cost value Of the i'm
provements.
The court, Chief Justice Cartier giving
| the opinion, affirmed the decision Of the court
| below; and decided that an action for mesue
profits 10, In this district, an equitable action,
and that mesne profits art subject to reeoup.
ment OF the value Of all improvements placed
upon the recovered property In good faith.
| Q. That the distinction taken by counsel be.
| tween the profits acoruing In the lifetime OF
the plaintiffs ancestor, and those accruing
| after his death, was more subtitle than sound ,
and that the case afforded no means Of making
| such distinction.
3. That the distinction drawn between the
Improvements Savage made and those he pur'
chased from Morgan, was a distinction with
out difference, and that Savage had . right ia
! recoup for all the improvements.
T Margaret German vs. The Corporation o.
Washington. This 10 an appeal from the judg
ment OF the Circuit Court in an action fol
damages, growing out of . breakwater, &C..
swept away by the falling in OF = bridge ovel
Tiber Greek during a freshet.
The only point In error was this; Carr
tenant for life In possession, maintains tres
pass on the case for damages to the inherit
ance. The case was argued by Messrs. Love
Joy and Bradley, jr., and was not concluded al
the adjournment Of the court.