The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1868-09-02
Judge Underwood's Usurpation.

EotOf " We O|oP"te"'
Sir,-In your article of Monday upon
the decision recently made by Judge I'm
derwood you do that gentleman injustice,
and believing that you would not willingly
do 80, beg that you will allow the follow
ing corrections to be made:
1t is not true, as you suppose, that the
Judge undertook to reverse or overrule the
decision of the State courts. The Court OF
Appeals held that the lease of the railroad
was void for want of power in the Board of
Directors to execute the same. In the ar
gument Of this case in Alexandria it was
conceded that the lease was void, and Judge
Underwood stated that if the question OF
the validity of the lease was before him he
should decide it to be invalid. There was
in fact no conflict between the State and
Federal courts. The case first decided by
Judge Thomas was brought to set aside the
lease, and in behalf Of what was known as
stockholders under the neaD corporation, de-
irving title by sale made by Mr.. Stuart of
French's interest in the road but on the
Monday after Judge Underwood's deci-
sion was made, Judge Thomas, in suit
brought by French, decided that the
Stuart sale and title Hereunder was
void. Judge Underwood simply held
that al attempt made the day before
the cause was argued to get possession of
the road was void because notice of mo-
ton to enforce the same parties, which had
been served upon them ten days before, was
equivalent to issuing the writ, so far as its
restraining effect upon the defendants was
concerned, and the Jurisdiction of the Fede-
rel court could not be Invested in any such
way. The bill was filed in the United
States Court for the performance Of several
| contracts entered into between the Adams
Express Company and the railroad board,
acting through their agents, under resolu-
ton of the Board of Directors. These con-
tracts were not only legal and usual, but
| highly beneficial to the road, and no matter
who might finally be held to be the true
owner, all courts would sustain them, be-
cause it is we'll settled principle that
where one deals with him who is in posses
sion and apparently the true owner, making
additions and improvements to the proper
ty, the courts before changing the possession
will take an account of expenditures, bene-
fits, and losses, and order fair adjustment
Of the equities. Such, in fact, was the de-
cree made by Judge Thomas subsequent to
tHc oIoei 1uauo Ny VuuSos oAuo1 neou ono
such, in fact, was admitted by the counsel
for the defendants to be usual and proper !;
for they not only asked for the account,
but offered to deposit the sum of $40, 900 to
repay the Adams Express Company for the
amount then due to them, and would have
been received but for the fact that no pro-
vision was made or offered to be made for
the unperformed part of the contract. And
careful examination of this decision will
show that there was no such conflict as your
article supposes between Federal and State
authority that; the case was the usual and
common one Of two courts seeking to deal
with the same subject in different aspects,
but neither interfering with the jurisdic-
tion OF the other. And the principles of
Jurisdiction were decided by the Chief JUS
tlce while he was here in May last in two
causes-one in which Mr.. Mason and Judge
halyburton were engaged as counsel, and
IN the other Judge Green, Mr.. Hunter,
| General Wells, and General Bradley John
son were counsel. The case was IN fact
common one, and involved no new princi-
pie nor any question which has not been
settled by the Supreme Court of the United
States by numerous decisions given before,
and one or two since, the war. B.
We publish the foregoing as matter of
justice to Judge UNDERWOOD. Our stric-
lures we're based upon what we supposed to
be the facts Of the case. We may recur to
the subject hereafter, and especially if he
should have the impudence to entertain in
his court 9 question as to the constitutional