The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-10-23
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

ON44GO oAA4 20 ou1 hEmG COOhA
~~~~~~~~~>~>~~~~~~~~>>~~~>~~
Dean VS.. Harvey, Appeal from the CIrcul
Court of Geor&ia-Douglass VS.. Douglass, Ad
nainistrator, Error from Supreme Court q
District of acknowledgements vs.. De i
Ronde, Executor, Error to Supreme COur
OF Louisiana-BarreIl vs.. PropeIl Mo
hnwk-DeIaware and Hudson Canal Com
pany Pennsylvania Coal Company.
WASHINGTON, Oct. %, 1869.
No. III. L. W. Dean Us. Robert d. Harrev-Thi
is an appeal from the Circuit Court Of the Northern
district OK Georgia. The object OF 1.-THE bill in th
case was to set aside and avoid sale OF real estat
made by Dean. because the consideration paid and &
be paid therefor was solely in the currency made AM
issued by the authority OF she Confederate States
Dean having remained In possession OF the land sold
after the death OF the vendee, his administrator tn
present defendant, Obtained from him lease, rec0g
nZng the title Of the vendee and contracting pay
the administrator rent, &C, with certain stipua
tions as to possession. The conveyance and this
lease the administrator put in on the trial q
exhibits, 10 defeat the bill, and fled demur
rer thereto. The demurrer was sustained ant
the bill dismissed The case il brought here, Dear
claiming that. as he il still in possession the sale
not complete, and the contract being illegal .
Court Of Equity Will interpose and annul it. TIT
ate money Is briefly presented In the same form q!
In earlier similar cases by Judge Hughey for th'
appellant ant Inc appellee makes no appearance
Administrator OF John DOuOt1Ss.-This 10 writ o
error from the Supreme Court OF the District o.
Columbia. Under writ Of replevin issued In the
cause the administrator took from Henry Douglass
his brother, l25 jaD0nicas, valued at 34,6S1, which
ne claimed belonged 70 the estate OF their father
The defendant pleaded his own title, and the tria
resulted In verdict for the plaintiff except as II
nine OF the plants, which were found to eelont
plaintifr were assessed at one cent and costs
On the trial the defendant excepted to the
ruling OF the Court IN respect to the admission
testimony, and subsequently moved in arrest O
Judgment alleging tnat the verdict was 80 svagu
and indefinite that no Judgment could be entere
upon it. Prior to the motion in arrest ne had ais
moved for new trial. Roth motions were sent
the court at General Term for hearing and wes
denied. The same questions OF evidence, and Otnes
as TO the regularity Of the motions In and r
new trial, are now presented for review. W.
Webb for piaintin IN error, and Bradley b Cox tr
defendant In error.
No. ITS. Robert Patterson, Plotatir In Error, 8.
Enl,te dc Ia ROasde, EIecntrfr Of Pierre HOd-ErDr
to the Circuit Court for the District OF Louisian.
Save made by Medoga Niece n bearlna date iy
TO- 1885, brought suit In the Circuit Court bel0wto
collect the debt from the mortgaged premises, nd
execution was issued to the Marshal under whch
he levied upon the premises in May, 1865, andm
June sold them at auction, Patterson buying mas
the highest bidder Tor the sum OF $50, 600, wh3n
amount he retained to pay first pror
mortgage in favor OF Hoa, amounting to $3a 90.
and Afterwards to apply on account OF costs ad
his own claim. The Hoa claim not being paid lner-
vention was filed on behalf OF his State, making
Patterson and the Marshal defendants To this e
tition the Marshal answered that he had PROCEEDED
according to law In leaving In the purchasers harris
the amount OF the prior encumbrance on the Pc
misses to be I satisfied by the purchaser Patteron
between Hoa and MCGEE the mortgage which
amounted to novatiOn OF Hoa's debt and Its pSt-
ponement to the mortgage OF Patterson. On tial
Pattersons claim was dlsallowed and the intervn-
ton Of Hoa was sustained and Judgment given or
his representative for $25 0O0 with preference in he
proceeds Of the premises, superior to that Of Paer
son and all Others new trial was obtained winch
resulted as before, and the cause comes here on he
error contend'ng that the Judgment below las
deprived him OF his right as judgment creditor OF
lnquiring into the validity OF the prior mortgYe
and this question, together with many Others ito
the laws OF Louisiana IN reference TO the regryor
inscription OF mortgages, is presented for ddern
there arr no executions only sncn as Inc eoT
alone discoses s cogniZable by the Court, andnone
being found there the judgment must be affirmed.
y. >. parant lor pialntiu In error; Mr. Evarta for
Messrs. George Pratt. Of Connecticut, and PHI.
No. i6s Joshua Basreu ps. The Propeller 10
haDh.-The Western transportation Company,
claimant-On the last day'of October, 1850, 10000
peller Mohawk at Chicago for account OF the Chiogo
Marine and Fire Insurance Company. to be tr:ns-
ported to Buffalo for fifteen cents per bushe freEht
1.-THE dangers OF navigation, rre and collision ex-
cepted." Another shipment Of about the SINE
amount was made on the same vessel the same1ay
on the same terms The Mohawk left Chiago
to prosecute her voyage to Buffalo, and the
next day grounded. in the channel on the st.
Clair fats, and while trying to get of and
pass the schooner Harriet Ross, winch was also in
the channel, her boiler exploded and occasiooed
nearly total loss OF the cargo by the slnsng OF the
vessel Upon receiving information of tie disaster
the agent OF the owners Immediately abaldoned the
wheat TO the insurance company Uhe Mutual, OF
Rn fol w nntA lnua at,A
assigned to the appellant all their nteresin the GER
tifcafe OF insurance, with all chose in acton
ing to 4. Afterwards the two partlesfor whose
account the wheat was shipped, commenced separ-
ate suits In Admiralty, which were dismissed
without prejudice and appeal taken Suisse
the rights Of the iibeiiants IN tnoe suits, a
and granted leave to file an amended
bill. The amended bill was dismissed without
ing that tue explosion was not danger d naviga-
ton" within the exception OF the bill OF laltng and
the carrier " liable for the damages caued by It,
"Peris OF the sea denote natural accidentspeculiar
to the elements, which DO not happen by he, inter.
vention Of man. nor are to be prevented y human
man effort and sagaclty.h the appellee CON tends
that as 10y stipulation OF parties as to fact the ap
peliant mas admitted that the propeller let port In
pute that the boiler was in good condition Nothing
occurred until she grounded to disturb the GOOD
condition OF the propeller. The admission applies
as well to the condition OF The boiler as tOany other
part OF the vessel at the time leaving pot and IA
nothing Is shown 10 have subsequently occurred to
render 1t defective IL is manlfesty wrop, for the
appellant to presume without proof that he expio.
sion occurred from defect in the boiler. The ey,.
dence Ia conclusive that there was no iautor neui.
gence on the part OF the officers men corse
quence OF which the ship was grounded, There Is q
question presented as to the appellants stalding In
court and as TO the freight carried at the time ohe
disaster but the one above stated IL the chif point
Involved. y. W. Fuller and Robert Roe for the
appellant. and G. Beckwith for the appellee.
NO. ITO. The President, DC, or the Dea,caye ma
HUDSON Cu7U Company 0S. The Pennsylvania QDdl
Con,pday-Error to the Circuit Court for the Souh.
ern District OF New York. The plaintiffs In erroin
this cause were pIainti1s below. Their action ,as
one of covenant against the coal company uponan
in lenture made between the two companies In
August, 1851, whereby the coal company was 3d.
stituted In the place OF an Incorporated joint STICK
company called the wyoming Coal Associatn
under an agreement between the association and te
coal company, made IN August, 1917, by
which the latter assumed all the Oblta.
tons Of the former, 1t having succeeded tosll
the rights and interests OF the association. his
agreement provided for the use Of the canal at err
tain scale OF tolls, for the transportation OF pal
brought 70 IL by railroad proposed to be built on
mn A.~x..A .tw.A