The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1869-10-30

SUPREME CoURT OF the DISTRICT OF Co.
LUMBIA.-All tho justices Of the Supreme
Court Of this District sat IN bdne yesterday
for the trial Of appellate cases.
ATTORNEY ADMITTED.
On motion OF Hon. Mr.. Riddle, Hon. 8. 8.
Fisher was admitted to the bar Of this court.
Lane vs.. Gibbons. Chief Justice Cartier
delivered the opinion Of the court In this
case. Judge Cartier said that tho court had
concluded In this case to reverse the order Of
the court below as to grant the plaintiff
leave to amend.
IN re. Bankruptcy Of +. p. Sawyer. In
this case, the merits Of which were reported
some days since, the court reversed the
Judgment Of the court below. Judge Wylle,
for the court, said that, inasmuch as the
papers showed that Sawyer was bankrupt
partner Of the Hrm Of Sawyer, Fisher & Hall,
the surviving members OF which remained
solvent, the bankrupt's assignee possessed
| no power to control the assets Of the firm.
Lord Hardwick had held that tho settlement
Of copartnership accounts, when one Of tho
partners was bankrupt, was an independent
proceeding. But this doctrine had been mod
flied by Lord Eldon, who held that the CO.
partnership accounts might be settled as
part OF the proceedings 10 bankruptcy. Al
no such settlement Of this kind had been at.
tempted, and the surviving partners not
made parties, the court were compelled 10
hold the Judgment below erroneous, aud IA
reverse 1t. Judge Olln dlsscuted.
Whelan ct al. VS.. James ct al. Messrs
Jones and Ashford filed motion TO dismlss
the appeal In this case and confirm the dc
cree below, because the appellants hav,
failed to comply with the ninety fourth rul,
Of the court, In furnishing printed copy o
the papers to each Of the judges and thre'
copies to the adverse attorney, &c. No &c
| ton was taken by the Court.
| Miller Il Miller VS.. George Wendt. tn,
Cont made an order to dismiss the appea
in this case, without prejudice to the right
Of either party. This is an appeal from tn,
Circuit Court In an action Of ejectment, II
which Ann Wendt, the defendant, was dis
possessed Of premises In which she claimed q
dover interest. The appellant claimed thai
she had no notice Of the suit until the deput
marshal Informed her that he had process i
put her out Of possession Of the premises
and that judgment for possession had beef
rendered In her care. She asked below tina
the Judgment might be set aside, and ap
pealed from the order refusing to set asid
the Judgment. 1t appeared by the record
of the Circuit Court that she had been mad
party to the suit, aud permitted 10 com
In and plead. The Court, as above stated
dismissed the appeal.
Fletcher VS.. The Commissioner OF Patents
Continued.
United States vs.. Kuntz, administrator
The case was argued by Mr.Wilson, and til
motion heretofore filed and reported In thl
case oyerruled.
THE MONTANA MAIL CASE AGAIN.
Altman vs.. Huntley. This Is case whic
has appeared In these columns many time
during the past year. 1t is q suit In whic
one party sets up a copartnership and seek
a share of the pay for mail service on a rout
In Montana. The other party denies th
copartnership. The merits Of the case hav
been too often reported In these columns
need repetition.
The case was argued by Messrs. Hugh,
and Merrick, but not concluded.
| Adjourned,