The New York herald., 1869-11-30
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.


Simon stevens ana James Brooks. III.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Decision In the Texns Indemnity Bond Case
The Lane Cotton Litigati0n-Tho Speed.
Davies Hog transactions.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 90 1862
No. 8 (Originall The state or Teras Us Whtte
Clites ana Others.-The Chief Justice delivered the
opinion in this cause holding that the tnirty-four
bonds, commonly called indemnity bonds, and ITO
coupons presented for redemption at the Treasury
Department by the defendant Hardenburgh were in
fact the property OF the State OF Texas and that the
bonds, commonly known as nve-twenty bonds,
amounting at their face value to $6000O deposited
by the defendant Hardenburgh with K. W. Taylor to
secure the Secretary Of the Treasury on the payment
or the indemnity bonds, are liable in equity to the
claim Of the State Of Texas to the extent OF the
indemnity bonds, which is found to be $ss, $50.
E-he decree is settled accordingly and Taylor is
directed to sell, and is appointed special master for
that purpose 30 many Of the fve-twenty bonds as
may be necessary to produce the sum required and
pay 1t to the State Of Texas, and deliver the
balance OF the bonds to Hardenburgh and report his
proceedings TO the Court within ten days from the
first day Of the next term. As it does not appear
from the complainant g bill that the State OF Texas
has any interest In four other bonds remaining, in
respect OF which further hearing was allowed to
Birch and Murray the bill as to those bonds is dis
missed. The theory Of the opinion that there was
no payment by the Treasury Department but merely
an exchange Of securities. The particulars OF the
No. les The united States us george W. Lane
tracts with sub-agent Of the Treasury at Norfolk to
procure cotton for the government ON the Chown n
river North Carolina, within the rebel lines. The
Will md "a frny
the same authority and the return, with 267 bales
OF cotton, the vessel was captured By the naval
months, when. by order Of the Secretary OF the
Treasury, the cotton was sent to New YORK to be
umbia for adjudication In the Prize Court. Upon
the nearing Of the case In the Prize Court the decree
to Lane in New YORK by order Of the Secretary
OF War, but the price OF cotton having fallen
IN the meantime this action was brought TO recover
the difference IN value, the amount claimed being
$31 825 40. The Court Of Claims gave judgment for
thesplantif and the government appealed, and this
court now held, Mr.. Justice Davis delivering the
opinion that the contract between the CLAIMANT and
the sub-agent OF the Treasury was Unauthorized by
any law, AID, on the contrary, was IN violation Of
law. There was authority In the Treasury regu-
lations for the contract made and any such regula
tion ii existing, would have been void, as licensing
or authorizing trade between public enemles-a
thing not contemplated nor intended by Congress
and unlawful. BY universal consent, in view OF the
case 1t deemed necessary to consider the ques-
Ion OF tine liability OF the government for the act OF
It's navy officers IN the matter OF detention. The
judgment OF the court OF Claims was reversed ana
the cause remanded, with directions to dismiss the
petition.
pes and The Same Us. Robert FlOyd-Appedl from
the court OF Cldins.--In October, 1854, the Secre-
tary Of War; through the Commissary General,
authorized Major Sim0uds, OF Louisville, TO pur-
chase hogs and enter into contracts LOT slaughterng
and packing them to furnish pork for the army.
Under this authority contracts were made with the
defendants here and action was brought 10 recover
for the work done. The Court OF CLAIMS gave judg-
ment for the claimants In Nc. lSs for Sle2o &c. and
In M for Tbn nnlnn Inn nad
claiming as its main proposition that pork packing
and bacon curing s not business within the scope
and power OF the Secretary Of War or his subordt-
nates Other technical objections TO the judgment
were raised, but the foregoing was the CHIEF
point. Mr.. Justice Miller now delivered the
sliion OF the government counsel Is entirely
too narrow view to take OF the official authority
Of the secretary Of War. II is conceded that the
Secretary OF War were TO undertake, under the
supervision Of his department. the distinct business
would be sound: but where, as in this case, that
officer authorizes the procuring OF hogs and con-
tract to be made for their saugnter and packing to
supply the army with pork, ne does no. 20 beyond
the limits OF his power to that end nor beyond the
requirements. OF duty. The other objections were
seyeraly met and answered by the opinion, and she
No. 200. Ihe Travellers Insurance Company cs.
District OF Ininois-The defendant in error Is
the widow OF one Mosley, and brought her action
to recover upon an accidental policy OF In
her. Tne defence was that the death OF the insured
was occasioned by disease and not BY accident. The
claim was that the insured had died from injuries
sustained by falling down stairs, and the court be-
ADMITTED tho declarations OF deceased at the
time OF his injury and during his illness thereafter
TO the cause OF his injuries and the nature of his
suffering, no other person having witnessed the
accident. This evidence was objected to hearsay,
and inadmissble, but was admitted and the verdict
was for the plaintiff. The was brought here for
review, and the Court now held Mr. Justice Swayne
delivering the opnon) that the declarations OF the
deceased. made at the time OF the accident were
admissible as evidence to show the fact Of the fall
dence In such cases is reviewed at great length an
the opinion, and the judgment Of the below is
affirmed. Mr.. Justice clifford read q dissenting
opinion, which was concurred in by Justice Nelson.
No. 206. Blanchard ct al perstts Pullman et al
Error 10 the Cacu1 court J0r the Southern District
alleged infringement OF patent Tor an Improvement
in bending wood The machine OF the plaintiffs fo
known as the rotary form machine, and that OF the
defendants rs the stationary f0rm and the question
whether in view OF the state OF the act plain
titfs' patent could be fairly construed to cover
machines IN which stationary forms were employed.
The jury Thought not. Another verdict declared
there mad Deen no lnfringement. From the iudg-
ment entered on that verdict the cause came here,
where it was now affirmed, Mr.. Justice clifford de-
Swayne dissenting.
No. 207 me Cnicopee hank, Plaintiff IN Error Us.
The seventh National Bank Of I'hddeIphid---Err'o,
10 the circuit court TIE District or Mdssdchu-
Chicopee Bank In Massachusetts for collection,
wbicn was lost In the latter bank and was not pre-
sented for payment The acceptors proving worth
less and the drawer and endorser being discharged
in consequence OF the want OF demand and protest
or other notice, this suit was brought and resulted
case, insisting that nothing was done or
omitted by their bank which caused Or