The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1869-04-19

DISTRICT SUPREME CoURT-Gsnerdl Term.
Chief Justice Cartier and Justices Wylic,
Olin, aud Fisher sat ~ bdnc on Saturday,
and acted on the following cases.
Harding ct al. VS.. Bradley ct al. Applica-
ton for q mandamus 10 compel the inspectors
Of election Of the Washington aud George
town Railroad Company to substitute certain
persons as elected directors Of that company
In the place Of certain other persons whom
they have certified as elected.
The defendants had demurred 10 the Pc
titlon as showing no grounds for the cxer-
else OF the power OF the court. The court
was divided as TO Its powers In the premises;
Chief Justice Cartier and Justice Fisher
holding that the court had such power, and
Justices Wylie and Olin that Il was beyond
their Jurisdiction. Tho court being thus
equally divided, the mandamus was refused
Chas. Ewing We. Z. +. Fuller and others.
The case came up on n motion to dissolve an
injunction made by Justice DIN.
The plaintiff, In this case, claims to have
boon o co-partner with Fuller and stcttaner,
to whom was assigned O contract by one
Slmerly, which the hrm executed I; and that
on final settlement voucher for $50, e1S was
given In Simerly's name and transferred 70
W. 8. huntington, csq., who was about 10
collect the same and transfer II beyond the
Jurisdiction Of this court. Upon the filing
Of this bill Judge DIN granted the usual
preliminary order, Afterwards Perry Fuller
| filed his answer denying that Ewing had any
claim on the firm, and the Merchants Ma
tional Bank Of Little Rock came In Is do
PENDANT, and claims the eso,si9, on the
| ground that Il purchased the voucher In
question without notioe Of any equity on the
part Of Ewing, and paid n, 200 uash on tho
vouchers, the balance being covered by In.
terest and expenses. Upon tho coming In Of
the answers Judge Olin mado an order OF In
junction and for q receiver. Tho defendants
came then In general term and moved
TO dissolve this injunction. Tho complain.
ants moved to dismiss the motion as beyond
the Jurisdiction Of the court, aud tho motion
TO dissolve was dismissed.
Dodge & Mcclellan ys. Clark. This case
comes up on an appeal from the order oil
Justice Olin for q writ Of assistance, author
hing the taking possession OF certain prop
efty of Morgan & Rhlnehart, made by Judge
Hughes, and q motion to dismiss such appeal
made by Mr.. Webb.
Mr.. Webb insisted that as the order was q
mere equitable fiat for execution, II was mo-
appcalable.
erty could not be seized under the writ with
out q decision as to the merits Of the case
such decision was appealahle.
| Tho Chief Justice announced the opinion
| Of tho court, that the order Of Judge Olir
did not involve the merits and could not b
appealed from. SO the appeal was dis
missed.
NJ seyerson vs.. Mayor Of Washington. This
as we noticed some weeks since, Ia an appli
cation Of Mt. sevcrson, who alleges that h
Is the engineer Of the Washington canal, t.
compel the Mayor Of Washington to sign I
warrant for the payment Of his salary. Tn
substance OF his memorial was published a
the time II was filed. The Mayors answe
denies that the office exists, and asserts tina
whatever rights the complainant may hay
he can enforce by q suit at law.
Mcssrs. selden and Hinc appeared 70
, severson,, and Messrs. Cook and Hlne 70
} the defence. The case was then postpone,
; until Saturday next.
J Adjourned.