The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-11-24

the part OF the steamer upon the question OF the
movements OF the respective vessels Immediately
loss claimed by tire libellants. although denied by
tue respondents was not proven; and that II was
not shown that any effort was made TO raise either
the vessel or cargo. The evidence contained In the
record IL examined at length. The appellees MAIN
tam tnat where the inferior courts concur In opinion
In collision causes and there is testimony sup
on douols raised. N. Wilson and ]. Hubey Ashton
Ior appellants; George II. Williams and w. Z. Fen
Dali Tor appellees.
No. 256. James bradley ps. r. s. Hunt and Caro-
uie htnesError to the Circuit Court for the West
1901 Breedin Co., citizens OF Pennsylvania, made
lease OF certain land In that State for term end
ing July l. 1864, TO one Rhines and another also
cltlzens OF Pennsylvania and partners In business,
Ior a certain rent, payable IN lumber. Before the
expiration OF the lease Breedn a Co. assigned their
interest In 1t To the plaintiff In error, citizen OF
Kentucky having sold him the LAND covered by 1t.
Rhines died. and letters OF administration on his
estate were granted to the defendants. In August.
1900 bradley Drought suit In his own name as
assignee, IN the court below, against the admins
traitors OF Rhines, one OF the partners and
man, the surviving partner under the con-
tract The declaration set forth all the
brought, and the defendants pleaded the general
issue. On the trial the lease was offered In eyi-
dence, and the defendants objected because Car
man, the surviving partner, alone could be sued,
according to the instrument, and because from the
declaration 1t appeared that the legal plaintiff was
fore, without Jurisdiction. The court sustained the
objection on both grounds and rejected the evidence
The case Is here for review, the paintln in error
maintaining that the rights and liabilities OF the
parties are 10 be ascertalned and determined by the
law OF pennsylvania and that by the existing laws
OF that State, as construed by her courts the COM
mon law distinctions between instruments Joint
and those joint and several III this class OF cases. are
obiiterated, and that the terms OF the legislation.
though limited TO undertakings that were Joint and
several are applicable to contracts that are Joint
una not several. On the point Of Jurisdiction 1t Is
submitted that under the Judiciary act It only In
cases OF assignment DrOmlHsOrV notes other
chooses in action tnat the asslgnees are prohibited
from suing IN the United States courts, unless their
asslgnors were also qualified by citizenship to sue
In those courts But neither IN point OF fact nor law
Is this lease chose In action. A lease, and the
cerned, constitute cnatte real. ana far as the
landlord Is concerned they are but part
OF his original estate In the premises leased
During the continuance OF the lease the
leased premises were conveyed to Bradley, the
assignee OF the lease, in fee, with all Its benefits
without any formal assignment and from the time
OF that conveyance Rhines and Carman became the
tenants OF Bradley IN as full and ample manner as
they had before been the tenants OF Breedin & Co..
and Bradley was from tnst time invested with all
the rights OF Breedn Co., as well in the lease as or
every other part OF the estate conveyed But IN any
case 1t Is submitted the objection to the jurisdiction
should have been taken by plea IN abatement or by
moJlon to dismiss. The want OF proper citizenship
cannot be raised at the trial upon the merits The
defendants here maintain the correctness OF the rui
ings below. b. +. Il A. G.. Lncos for plaintiffs IN
error; J. A. Wills for defendants
No. 253 James Hickman Plaintiff IN Error, Us.
EdB0rd c. Bets et dt.-Appeal from the District
Court for the Northern District OF Alabama.-Hck-
man brought his action against the defendants, who
were Officers OF court and grand jurors. under the
Confederate states government and VINO nad IN
dlcted HIM for treason against that authority to
cover damages Tor mallclously and without proba-
bic cause causing him to he arrested, imprisoned,
&c. The verdict below was for the defendants,
under the charge OF the Court, and Hickman ap-
peas, claiming that as the parties acted without
authority they are responsible Tor all damagesIo
hum resulting from Their acIs and that II IS no JUS
tcauon TO urge the power OF the Confederate States
IN the premises. The defendants submit that in
such case any authority emanating from the Con-
1ederate government which in the event OF the
success OF the rebellion would have protected
the defendants Will now protect them to the
same extent as II the rebellion had not
failed and the national authority had not oeen re-
stored. All OF the parties were citizens and resi-
dents OF the insurrectionary state OF Alabama, and
all the acts complained OF were done during the
reDe occupancy OF the State and by noncomDaLants.
Mr.. Johnson for plalntir IN error; Messrs. Walker
and Jordan for defendants.
No. 264. Meader Us. N1rtOn.-Continued.
The following cases were argued to-day
United States Express Company Pidiftlf ia Error,
rs. Kouze Brothers. Error 10 the Circuit court for
The DtsTict or Ne0rdSEd.-This action was COM
menced by the defendant III error to recover from
the Express Company as common carrier, the
value OF certain gold dust forwarded by them from
Omaha To Philadelphia
Olluer Bronson, PiatnttG IN Error, Us. Stephen
Kempto3l, IN Error 10 ne NelC FORK Court or Ap-
peals.-Tnis Is another coin contract case.