The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1870-10-12
SUPREME CouRT-OsRERAL TERM.
Before Judges Morrell, McCunn and Spenc,
Hearing Upon an Appeal in q Will On

Before judges Morlell, McCunn and Spencer
Hearing Upon nm Appeal in a Will Case.
The People Qf the state or NeW FORK ON the Re-
ldton OF Emanuel Niger, Appellant, us. Louis Hart
man implicated arith Magdaleno IYaest and Frede-
rich Kdutz ResDontclt-Tne defendant Magdalena
wil and letters testamentary were issued to Der BY
the Surrogate. Hartman and Kautz became bonds
men for Mrs. Wucst. The appellant, q creditor OF
Peter WucSt, nlcd petition With the Surrogate TO
compel Mrs. Wuest to appear In the Surrogate.s
Court and account for the property received by her
upon his report IL was decided that Mrs. Wuest
should pay the debt In question, which decree she
Jailed 70 OBEY. In December $685. on the foregoing
sSer that the bond 81 Mrs Waest lq BE-
assigned TO Mr. Hartman Tor prosecution.
be- principal and interest, on November 20. 1865.
So rs 10. The only defence offered In the case
made was "a The production q certified copy OF .
spoAdent Hartman having applied TO be released
from responsibility on account Of the future acts
ceased husband, thai the Surrogate had therefore
revoked her authority snch eXecurlx. The court
decides that this order was q complete defence to
The action, and directed verdict for Hartman. Mr.
Hartman was the only defendant who appeared,
mrs Wuest and her other surety having made de.
fault.
The case was argued at great length by opposing
counsel anu then submitted to the Judges
Liens on ships and vesseIs--Is the statute
CONSTITUTIONAL
Charles J. Fisher APPELLANT, rs. charles Lub,y
n al, Respondents. The plaintiff is steycdore who
loaded the bark Harriet, with cargo bound for
San Francisco at the request OF Ruger Brothers 1t
was proven mat Kruger was the broker, having ar.
thority rom the owner to charter ship and that
lie dld charter her TO Comstock q Co., by written
charter Witch provided that tho stevedore should
be satisfactory TO the charterers ana that the ship
should pay the stevedore. The plaintiff was en-
ployed ny RuSer with the approval Of the charerers
ana the planiii 1ed his specification OF lien, under
the act OF 1862, providing for liens on ships On her
return ne Obtained warrant Of attachment against
tho bond upon which the action Is now brought.
Tic pond provides for the payment OF the clam il
planin establishes the fact Of hts lien The Defend
ground that no contract within the meaning Of the
act was proven, and raised the further point that the
statute WAS nncon.svtunonal. The point was over.
ruled. Ine plalnslH appeals.
Mr.: Bulkeey for the defendants, argued that, I'M
der the decision IN the Josephine case aud the case
Of Forrnn w. Hosloid (54 Barbour the statute was
unconstitutional, inasmnch as Il provided for ma.
cninery similar TO that given in the Courts of Adj
miralty, and mat the Constitution Of tine United
causes TO the United States courts, ana that the
plaintiff has not proved the contracting Of any debt
within the meaning OF the statute
Mr.. Goodrich, Tor the plaintIfY. argued that the
claim OF steyedore was not case OF maritime in.
risdIcion, an0that the United States courts nave
uniformly refused 70 entertain jurisdiction in rem, or
In persona, OF sevedofcs claims; and also that the
United States supreme Court IN tile recent case OF
the Belfast had decided that the lien laws OF the
States were constitutional. The siDgularity Of the
position in regard TO this statute is tiis:Te Conri
OF Appeals has declared the statute to be nnconsti
tntiona inc supreme Court OF the United States has
Of 1859 no appeal lies from tho former TO tho latter
N any case, unless the Court OF Appeals shall de.
fIare san s se 20 De IN harmony with the
preme Court may review the decision,
The Court reserved Its decision Goodrich A.
for RESPONDENTS ''' D"'-'NA>J