The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1868-03-17

SUPREME OoURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Monday, March IL, 1s6s.-On motion Of II. NJ. Cor.
wine, esq, ThonasA. Logan, esq, OF Cincinnati,
Ohio, was admitted to practice as an attorney
and counsellor OF this court.
On motion Of George II. williams, esq, vii.
liam A.. Fisher, esq, OF Baltimore, Md, was
admitted TO practice as an attorney and counsel.
No. ael. T6s steamboat Victory" Jos. Gray,
ts oyi s esa N error to he supreme Court %
ilyered the opinion Of the court dismissing this
No, s5. wiillsm H. Crandaii, plaintiff In error,
". The state q Nevada. In error to the supreme
Ter delivered the opinion Of the court reversing
the Judgment OF the said Supreme Court, and
demanding the cause with directions to discharge
the plaintin In error from custody.
No. sst; The Mayor, ae., OF Newcastle, Ten.
nessee, plaintiff in error, vs. william T. Cooper.
o e Middle S,Sat SG q The United
court reversing the Judgment OF the said Circuit
the said Circuit court with directions TO reln No
No; 50. Sebastian Reichert, plaintiT ia error,
'o' he State 81 f fnsof to Ms sgD,s%
lriet delivered the opinion Of the Court, affirm.
ing the judgment Of the said Supreme Court In
No. -. The Milwaukee and st. Paul railroad
company Ip appellant, Vs. James T Sout,er
.o ~. %. .ne mwaukee ano ~ raul railroad
No l6i. Tie Milwaukee and ST. Paul railroad
company, appellant, vs.. James T. Soutter.
Appeals from the Circuit Court Of the United
States for the district of Wisconsin.
MIR. Justice Nelson delivered the opinion Of
the Court, reversing the DEGREES Of the said Cir
causes, with directions TO enter decree IA favor
ofthe Milwaukee and st. Paul railroad company.
Dissenting. Mr.. Justice Miller.
No. lI2 The Milwaukee and Minnesota rail.
road company, appellant, va Jas. T. Soutter
No; iIa; !, Alexander Fleming, appellant, W..
No. 23o The Milwaukee and Minnesota rail.
road company, appellants, Us. Jas, 7. souttcr
United States for the district OF Wisconsin.
a, Mr. Justice Nelson delivered the opinion of
the Court, affirming the DEGREES OF the said OR.
cult IN these cases with costs.
No 49, The Milwaukee and Minnesota rail-
road company, appellant, VS.. the Milwaukee and
No. ais. James +. Souiter ct. al, appellants,
vs.. the Milwaukee and Minnesota railroad
Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United
States for the district OF Wisconsin. Mr.. Jus.
tice Nelson delivered the opinion Of the Court
affirming the DEGREES Of the said Circuit Court in
Dissenting in No. 2ie. Mr.. Justice Miller.
No. 20. The Milwaukee and Minnesota Rail-
Iosd Company spPssils,nt ". ssah Chamber
ted states for the District Of Wisconsin. Mr..
Justice Nelson delivered the opinion OF the
Sourt amImihB the decree OF the SAID Circuit
Court In this cause with costs,
No. 22l The Milwaukee and st. Paul Railroad
Company, appellant, vs.. The Milwaukee and
from the Circuit Court OF the United States for
the District of Wisconsin. Mr.. Justice Nelson
delivered the opinion ofthe Court, reversing the
decree OF the said Circuit Court with costs, and
demanding the cause to the said Circuit Court
with directions to enter decree In conformity
to the opinion OF this Court.
No. 23l. The Milwaukee aud Minnesota Rail-
road Company, appellant, va. Fred. p. James.
No. 232. Same VS.. same, and
Circuit MS - oa SI%e % sa AEPs, 9% hs
trict Of Wisconsin. Mr.. Justice Nelson deliv.
cred the opinion OF the Court, affirming the de-
orees OF the said Circuit Court In these causes
with costs.
No. sos. The State Of Ohio, ep REL BENJAMIN
II. Cowcn, plaintiff In error, VS.. James q. Wet
OF the Court, postponing the decision OF the mo-
tion to dismiss this writ Of error until the hoar-
Ing on the merits.
No. 1872. The United States, appellants, vs..
Simeon Hart Mr.. Justice Nelson delivered the
opinion Of the Court, granting the motion for
Me- sa st p'F$GH M " ike p in
error, vs.. Etienne Nidavaso: In error to the Su-
prene Court ofthe State OF Louisiana. Mr.; JUS
diction.
No. ito. William CLARK, appellant, VS.. The
United States. Mr.. Justice Nelson delivered the
opinion OF the Court, overriding the motion for
ccrtiorari In this cause.
NO, IL. original The state oil Georgia, com
plainant, VS.. u. =. Grant ct al. Mr.. Chief Jus.
tice Chase announced the order Of Court grant
ing leave to file bill Of In this cause.
No. lOi. The United States ex rel. II. r. Craw.
ford, plaintiff In error, vs.. Henry Addison ct al.
The argument of this cause was continued by
MIR. Jos. II. Bradley, sr., and Mr. Wills, Of coun.
sci for the defendants in error, and concluded by
Mr. Carlisle, OF counsel for the plaintiff In error
AT the GeOrgetOwn municipaI election In Feb
ruary, 1869, r. Il. Crawford, the then incumbent,
was declared by the judges OF election to have
received majority OF the votes cast, and there.
fore took the oath Of office before Justice OF the
peace. The city Councils of Georgetown thought
that error had been committed by the judges
Of election, and declared Henry Addition Mayor,
the latter taking the oath before the Councils,
and entering upon the possession of the office
Crawford thereupon, as reator, sued out a writ
etS s .sue to Se pied %eph
to ascertain whether Addison had received a
majority OF votes at the election.
After an examination OF witnesses and purga-
tion OF the poll the jury came into court with a
sealed paper purporting to be verdict that at
the election In question there was tie vote.
diet for the reason that did not settle the issue
to be tried: The jury being sent back, found
verdict that Addison had mol received amajority
OF the votes cast. 1ncreupon the court gave
Judgment for costs to the relator, and of custer
from office against Addison. Addison appealed
United States, and 40 a condition OF precedent
to such appeal filed bond TO indemnify Craw-
ford If the appeal was not prosecuted, and there
ment of custer. Addison did not prosecute the |
appeal but on the 18th of December, 1859, the |
councils OF Georgetown, whose charter author |
lied them to elect the mayor when thcre was a |
tie vote OF the people, proceeded to elect Mr.. |
Addison, who thercupon was inaugurated ten |
months after the election For the fear OF some |
In that choice he was again elected |
In January, 1900 and again Indicted into office,
The appeal not having been prosecuted, Mr..
Crawford brought ar action on the Indemnity |
bond above mentioned, and the Circuit Court re-
fusing to rule according to Crawford's counsers |
Judgment Of the law, the new case went to the |
supreme Court on appeal, and was heard as
above stated.
Mr.. Carlisle argued that as Addison had failed
10 prosecute his suit, he WAS bound by his bond
10 answer to Mr.. Crawford for all the loss sus-
,ained by him in consequence of such appeal.
Had the appeal not been made Crawford would
have been Mayor of Georgetown, and enjoyed
he salary That salary, therefore, made a por-
Ion of the damages for which the bond engaged |
hat Crawford should be inlemniled.
Messrs. Bradley and Wells contended that after
he judgment OF custer by the court below, Add
ION ceased to ho.d by title adverse to Crawford's
lain, and afterwards was elected as though he
lad been n different man, and was chosen by diff |
erent electors, consequently, Crawford suffering |
lothlng but that holding was entitled to no In |
lemnny therefor nor could suit for the sal
Try OF AN office be maintained upon declaration
Illeging breach in the condition OF a bond to
prosecute an appeal.
Mr.. Carlisle In reply quoted q case from I'D
Toward, as showing that the salary OF which an
'ticer had been deprived by the unlawful inter |