The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1870-12-07
THE COU r T S .
Important Question Of Jurisdiotiou, The Jay
Cooke sevon-Thirty case-Brie- scG or thu
Track-Alleged Fraud in the Purchase
Of Cotton-Heavy S.ntences In tho
Court Of Central sessions-Ju-
rors Fine x-General Business.
uEafn STATES SUPREME COURT -usc.soMs.

|
! Inv1iidity or Indian Land Titles-srunicI-
pal Commercial chn,euts
Against Ahsconding Defendunts-- Military
Banlshments a Bar To Civil Sui ..
WASHINGTON, Dec. o, 1870.
The following decisions were delivered to-day in
the Supreme Court OF the United States:--
No. A. SteUens Is. S1aith-E,T0r TO the Supreme
court or Konsas--And Too Other Cnses.-The ques-
ton in this case whether under the treaty with
them, the Kansas Indians could ALLEVIATE their lands
without the official sanction OF the Secretary or
the Interior Several or them heirs OF the original
grantees, sold their lands to Stevens but alter
wards, BROUGHT these actions to recover them on the
ground that they were Incapaciated TO sell. On the
trial the Court refused 10 allow the documents pur-
porting TO be deeds to Stevens to be introduced as
evidence , holding ,nat the grantos named therein
ment entered holding that the authority TO sc
was vested In the Secretary OF the Interior and was
In violation OF the law ana void, and that Stevens
took no title Mr.. Justice Davis delivered the
opinion.
Case No. 90. Do,cnhan Us. The Cav OF Aleras-
drd In Error 10 the Ffh Judicial District or Vty-
0tnta.-In this case the city OF Alexandria imposed
tax of two dollars on agents and dealers In ale and
beer by the cask not manufactured in the city and
brought there for sale. The tax was resisted on
tho ground thai lt was uncon sttutional being q
favor OF local manufacturers. The court
sustained The tax and the case, was brought
question raised by the record which this court
could consider under The twenty fifth section OF tae
Judiciary act as the record does not show that the
tax was TO be imposed on manufacturers outside OF
the State. but simply on those outside the city OF
Alexandria. In such case the questions suggested
do not arise and the writ OF error dismissed. Mr.
Justice Field delivered the opinion OF the court.
Case No. 81. cooper rs. Reynolds, Error to the
Court FOR the Eastern District Of Tennessee ia
the case brought By Reynolds to recover back his
property sold TO Cooper at Sherin's sale, on
Judgment OF $4,000 against Reynolds and others for
imprisonng the person OF William G. Brownlow,
Senator, at the outbreak of the war. The Court
below held that the proceedings I'm the Brownow
suits weie void, and That Cooper took no title from
me sher q. That Judgment is reversed; this
Court holding that the State court, In which
the Brownlow action was brou hit. hid authority to
issue the writ OF attachment against the property OF
persons abscOniing from the State and that such
actions could issue IN actions Of tort The Judgment
IN that case was held to be void and the case was
remandel for q new trial. Mr.. Justice Miller de-
lvered the opinion OF the Court. Mr.. Justice Field
dsscnted taking the view that the State never
acquired jurisdiction in the case Of Brownow VS..
Reynolds.
Case No. 80 Jones rs. A7Gretcs ct al.-Appeat
nom me Circuit court Tor TIE Western District OF
7ennessee-The bill In this was filed to restrain
the collection OF certain promssory notes for failure
OF consideration. The complainant being a citizen
zen OF New York ana The other Of Tennessee, the
bill was dismissed for want OF jurisdiction. This
Court holds that, as Andrews voluntarily appeared.
although he did not reside In the district where the
suit brought. the Court thereby acquired jurs-
ELECTION under the act Of 1889: the decree below
was, therefore, reversed. Mr.. Justice Bradley de.
lvered the opinions.
No. 50. The United states u.s. Hut 0,a--Etror to
the Circuit court for the District OF Wisoonstn.--In
this and other decided with 1t the act Of Con-
gress required Of the defendants, disiers, that
they should enter, in q book for that purpose, the
number OF gallons placed In warehouse and the
number OF gallons sold, NC, and the proof thereof.
Their bonds also provided that tn should do so,
aud the breach alleged was that they had not done
the act OF Congress did not require OF the
defendants bond to this particular act, the bond
required OF them was void and the Judgment was
void accordingly rne government brought the
case here insisting That as the bond was voluntary
and being prohibited AS against the policy OF tho
law, it was valid; lso that the condition which
qures true and faithful conformance to- all the
provisions OF the act necessarily includes The duty
hero not performed. The Court sustain this view
OF the case and reverse the Judgment. Mr.. Justice
Swayne delivered the opinion.
No. So. Fte,d Us. harrington et di.-Error 10 the
Circuit court Jor the Eastern District or ArEan-
sas.-This was an action to recover advances
made by factors on assignments. The questions OF
fact under the charge or the Court decided In
favor Of the factors. The refusal OF the Court to
charge requested assign as error as also certain
portions or charge. The judgment re-
yersed ana new trial ordered, Mr.. Justice Strong
delivering the opinion OF the court.
No. so. Dean cs. Nelson ct dL-sppeal from
the circuit court yor ire District OF West 7ennes-
sse.-Ths was a snit originally brought before the
Cvil Commission, appointed by General Veatch,
commanding at Memphis in 1862 to recover on Ger.
tain promlssory notes made by Nelson. He then being
within the Confederate lines where he had been sent
by the federal military authorities the Judgment was
by default with order OF execution against certain
stocks OF The Memphis Gas Light Company owned
by che defendants III case Of nenpay ment. After
the close OF the war this suit was commenced 10
recover the stocks and the decree below was that
they be transferred TO the paintlS there upon pay
ment OF the amount OF the notes, &c That decree
now modified and affirmed, Mr.. Justice Brad.
ley delivering the opinion.