The New York herald., 1871-12-19

- ssst-te Of Iimitatiens-Inports nc % ,6ire
su.-r.ace empanies-Csntestip fsf the
Prise for the Capture Of the s,hip syrou,
M Charsestsn, During tho Lv.te Rebcliou.
The supreme and State Csvrts Agree As To
ese Legitimacy asd T4sao of the Heir of
Jessle Do Lux, Of New York.
WASHINGTON, D. c., Dec. ls. 1871.
No. ID Senames vs. The CITY Fire Insurance. C3'n-
panv OF RarUord.-Error to the Circuts Court for
oonneosaoul-Tnis was an action on policy OF IN
snrance issued upon the plaintins property in Mis-
sAssippi, and the defence was that the action
was oarred Dy q provision OF the policy
because not commenced within twelve months
rom the date OF the loss. The court
Sound that the contract was suspended during the
var, but revived from and alter the procamaton 0i
eorce and the suit not having been brought within
She time prescribed oy the contract In the policy,
although there was no obstacle IN the way the pro-
vision OF the poncy was bar and the Judgment
was the company. This Court held that The linn
safion being by contract and by statute, and IL
being impossible for the plalntlr to bring his action
wi,nin the stipulated, the Court cannot now hx
sncer date or T1e a sc1n po coIa sS
cate OF the loss By reason OF the existence Of the
var. and the year having expired the parties are
Connections provides Q limitation OF six years IN
such actions and the suit ls brought within that
but reviewing the principle Of the decision below,
the judgment ID reversed AND new trial ordered.
u. u0lVoreO
The eject OF this decision is to discriminate be-
tween limitations fixed Dy statute and limitations
axed oy contract m the application o. m the rulo Of
making the FORMER su beet 70 the rule and leaving
the latter though 1t had not existed and the rights
involved 70 oe determined by the local statutes
No. 81. Aonadnock ct al. Us. The United Stdtes.-
Appeal from the Dis,rict Court Of Massachusetts,
xhis was distribution on prize, and the decree
below that captured ship, the Syren, fell to
the Uniled States on the capture OF Charleston,
where she was lying In port, but that the steamer
Eladiolus, having rendered valuable salvage SER
Woes N saving me syren from destruction BY nre
abandoned. was entitled to one-thrd OF the
proceeds Of, the prize e. as salvage; No
Be entitled 70 any share In the distribution. The
pn.cers and crew OF the Monadnock and others
af1vmed. the Court holding that IN the absence OF
hny statutory provision Tor cases Of the joint capture
y se To- ~ Is s
ruling In England, 1t Is said where such captures
are held not t. oe within the prize acts aud where
they provided Tor by statutes passed especially
for the purpose. MIR. Justice Swayne delivered the
epinlon.
No. %. ConJsne ct al Us. Fesrie ana Curtis
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS from the Southern Dis
mot OF New York.-The appellants are the admin
ktrators OF one Jennie De Lux, woman OF French
attraction, who died intestate IN the city OF
New YORK some years ago. leaving large personal
1SSCoDoNs
lter full hearing he was appointed administrator
hy the Surrogate OF New York. The ap.
Eellants, alleging Ferries lllegtimacy, took the
base up TO the higher court OF the State and
onally 10 The Court Of Appeals, where the decision
Df the Surrogate was affirmed. This action, involv-
lpg the same question, was then brought and the
AeclslOR OF the state courts was pleaded In
bar TO the proceeding. 1he Court overruled the
plea and directed the defendants to answer; but
NpOn the hearing on the merits the decision OF the
ecate courts wna afnrmcd. The cause was then
brought here where the uecree B anrned without an
examination or the merits the Court holding that the
decision Of the State Court was conclusive Of the
question and that the plea In bar should have been
Sustained below and f1e bill there dismissed. This
necls0n Is based upon the theory that tho Judgment
~ court OF concurrent Jurisdiction directly upon
che point ID plea IN bar or as evidence conclu
Sfve between the same parties on the same matter
directly In question In another court Mr.. Justice
DAVIS delivered the opinion. the Chief Justice,
ng Of counsel for Ferie, did not participate In
the decslon OF the case.
No. IL Hau and Bl0island et. al rs. Allen, As.
stonee-Appeal from the Circuit Court for Missouri
This appeal dismissed for want OF jurisdiction,
she Court holding that the action OF the Court below
was IN The exercise OF Its experimenting or revising
urtsdctlon and that no appeal lies In such case.
The Chief Justice announced the opinion.
No. ll0 BoT1Gnd us. BOvce-Appeal from the
Circuit Court Of the Southern district OF New York
Motion 10 dismiss denied. The order was an
A0unced W the CHIEF Justice.