Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-04-06
THE COURTS.

CIRCUIT CouRT, Judge Wyie.-C
the m. ton for Il new trial in D. "A saturday,
dition that the plaintiff -everruled, on con.
eept for a nominal fenhits all damages ex.
Baltimore aud O. sum. Ella Carroll agt
ton Tor the 10 Railroad Company. Ha.
The eronn' ,essahee OF execution resisted on
the Sur 2rat an apps al has been taken 70
oper. r'oe Court of the United States, which
it Is g.. rs a supcrsedeas. Ga the other hand
sns W. .;euded that the writ of error did not is.
ono thin ten days, and cons qaently does not
" rate as a supersedeas.
THE CENTER MARKET CASE.
This morning, Judge w ylie decided TO over.
rule the demurrer in the case OF Barron agt
corporation of Washington, and gave his opin-
ion as follows:
l have come to the conc fusion 10 override the
demurrer in this case. The corporation pleads
IN the case that when the contract was entered
into II was known to both parties that the
ground belonged to the United States; that 1t
was reservation. and was unlawfully occu-
pied by the corporation for market purposes.
An act OF Congress was then passed, Under
which n became incumbent upon the Secretary
Oh tne Interior 10 take possession OF this reser-
walton, and the work on the contract was there
fore stopped. MIR. Barron had contracted with
the corporation of Washington TO build a mar
ket-house upon the reservation, and for the
purpose OF deciding upon this demurrer, hs
must be charged with knowing that the corpO.
ration had no right to erect market-house
upon this reservation; he knew it belong 10
the GoVernment; was reserved tor the public;
and, besides that Congress subsequently,
should be taken, and all distractions removed
| from the reservation. and providing hat no
such structure rs a market house should be
placed there. Mr.. Barron being thus prevented
from carrying on the work, has sued the Corpo-
ration not for work and labor done and mate.
rails furnished, because as TO UGH he may pos
slbiy have right to recover; but in this action
ne claims TO recover damages from the Corpo-
ration for net permitting him to go on and COM
plete this contract, which he acknow lodges by
his demurrer neither he nor the Corporation
IN axxt.r into ox.A h...k,
positively prohibited by subsequent act of
Congress.
In Comyns Dig. 7. Covenant, (F.,) we find:
So, If there be covenant to do a lawful thing,
and afterwards by act of Parliament, the thing
be prohibited, the covenant shall be defeated.
Broom,s Legal Maxims, 1928. Lcr non cogit
tmpcssibutid. "Where III. covenants not to do an
| act or thing which was lawful to do, and an
act of Parliament comes after, and compels him
| to do it, the statute repeats the covenant. So,
| If II. covenants to do a thing which Is lawful,
| and an act of Parliament comes in and binders
him from doing it, the covenant is repealed
DIN Parsons on Contracts. pages 1867, we
"The illegally Of a contract ,s in general, a
| perfect defence. 1t may, indeed, be regarded
as an impossibillity by at Of lac; and it is put
| on the same footing as an impossibility by act
| Of God; because it would be absurd for the law
| to punish man for not doing or, In other
| words, to require him to do that which it for
| bids his doing Therefore, If one agrees to
| do a thing which 1t is lawful for him to do and
| IT becomes unlawful by an act Of the Legisla-
ture, the act avoids the promise" "But IL one
agrees to do what is at the time unlawful
| subsequent act making the act lawful cannot
| give validity TO the agreement because it was
void at its beginning"
The demurrer TO the plea is, therefore, over
ruled.
Binnix ys. Rutherford; appeal dismissed and
judgment for plaintiff.
Schmidt vs.. Mack; motion for new trial
oyerruled, and appeal to General Term
Forrest VS.. Moulden; bill of exceptions fled
ORPHANS COURT, Judge PityccU.-On Satur-
day, IL +. Gallagher qualified as adminstra-
tor OF James Gibbings-bond $3.50. +. Spindle,
of &. Goidsmth-bond $500