The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-11-16

OF parties holding the legal title. who were the
defendants in error. The assent OF the latter was
given 10 the first shipment when informed OF IT, and
they received the proceeds on the drafts OF con-
sgnorS To their order The last consignment was
making them distrustful, and they at once notified
tue conslgnees TO make no further advances
TO the c?nsignors and then claimed to be ylrtu-
ally ana legally tue owners OF both conSignment9
They afterwards obtained from the consignors
an order which was accepted by the consgnees re-
properly TO their credit and hereafter thew dealt
with the two consignments as owners, substituting
themselves in place OF the original consignors The
question was whether, having taken this course, the
defendants In error adopted the terms or the con-
slgnments as agreed between the consgnees and the
original consignors, and then became In the place OF
the latter liable Tor the general balance. Under the
Instructions to the Jury by the court below the
dict was for the substituted parties, and they
not made so Liable. This court now reverses the
Judgment entered In that verdict and remands the
cause, Mr. Justice Davis delivering the opinion.
The Court are OF the opinion from the evidence be-
fore them, that the substituted parties did adopt
the agreement OF the original consignors as TO be-
come liable for the general balance.
No I0i. Mcguire, PtdtntJ IN Error, rs. Tylef
et al. Error 10 the Supreme Court or Missouri
This d motion to reform the Judgment In the
case made DV the defendants In error VINO claim
tnat IL Is In violation OF the powers and Jurisdiction
OF The court IN thai 1t deprves the state courts OF
the constitutional right TO determine certain ques-
lions OF local law. MIR. Justice Clifford now delivered
the opinion Of the court adherng TO the questions OF
law originally decided but directing that the Judg-
ment order be 80 modified as not To interfere with
eJnrlsdcton OF the State courts IN respect OF tho
com planned oil.
No. 49, Young d sons Us. Martini In Error
" the supreme court or The Territory or Utah.
rms was an appeal from a Judgment OF the Supreme
Court oil the Territory diminishing the appeal taken
from the Judgment OF the District Court. The court
aulrmeu the 1uugment OF dismissal. Mr.. Justice
Field delivered the opinion.
No. rs. Patterson u.s. DE La Ro,tede. IN Error
10 TIE Cfcnu CotftJor the District Of louisiana
lhis was an appeal, based the record alone with
out exceptions, raising certain questions as TO prl-
orlty oil tltle under the laws OF LOUISIANA concern
ing The registry OF mortgages. The Judgment OF tno
livered the opinion.
No I76. 1ce1tdo Brothers ~. Gdu In Error 10
the circuit court FOR the District or louisiana
This was also case OF title under the laws OF the
crops, under the Louisiana statues for money adj
vanced 10 assist IN raising them. The plaintiffs also
claimed that the crops had been sold TO them by tho
planters; but before removal they were seized In ex-
ecution by other parties. The court below held that
the claim OF ownership was Inconsistent with tho
alleged lien, and dismissed the case. This court re-
affirmed the Judgment, Mr.. Justice Miller delivering
the opinion.
No. 2l5. The United States u.s. Haye.-Argumens
concluded
No. 2ls. BuTeH Us. me Cttg or Boston.-Ordered
that the Judgment below be affirmed per stipulation
OF counsel.
The Chief Justice announced that the court would
adjourn from Wednesday, the 18th instant, to Mon
day the cd and that Thursday, the 18th, would be
set apart for motions, the court adJournlng from
that day 10 Monday, the 18th.
The court declined to enter upon the minutes the
resolutions OF the learned officers OF the court upon
the occasion OF the death OF Robert j. walker, It
being deemed lnadmlssloie To establish a precedent
that might lead 10 constant applications VI like cha
racter
No. 2l9 Gibbons rS. The United .S'otes.-Appeal
from the Court OF Claims. Wll be the first to-
morrow.