The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-01-24
T He C0,UR rs .
Important Question in Bankruptcy The Collision
Of the Steamer Norwalk-suit Against
an Express Company-Deciaons
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DscIsou,.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 90, 1871,

WASHINGTON, Jan. 90, 1871.
The Supreme Court to-day delivered the followinf
opInons:-
No. "a. Barnard ps. Kelty 81 al--E,ror to n
Circuit court Jor ne District or Connecticut bad
nard was commission merchant In Boston, and
received from Buenos Ayres quantity or wool. on
which he paid advances and placed 1t in the hundi
OF brokers, with instructions not 10 sell unless thu
purchaser came on and examined the wool pen
sonally; subsequently sale was made to 3
ponenr In error making personal nspeo
ton Of the wood, ana alter examining several
wards Kelog & Co. notified Barnard that the wool
was falsely packed. On the trial 1t was shown, b1
the custom OF wool dealers In New York and Dog
ton, there Is WARRANTED by the seller, Implied bI
tho fact OF sale, that the wool is not falsely rackedf
The Court sustained the custom and decided IN
upon given state OF facts the rights anW
Liabilities OF the parties to contract are fixed By
cannr sn cbanna nv VI a we oovn " MY
place where the contract Is made. In tins case on
tho facts shown no warrant OF the good quality OF
tue WOOL Is Implied by the common law, ana no cus
tom IN the sale OF the article established in New
York and Boston can be admitted to imply ones
Mr.. Justice Davis delivered an elaborate opinion
maintaining this view, reversing the Judgment bes
low and directing new yenre. j
No. 81 The Steamer Daniel Eau Us. The United
StdtesADpedl from the Circ,ttt court fOr the Westi
e'n District OF lfchf9dn-This was . libel of nfor4
nation against the steamer to recover penalty or
not having procured inspection license while eng
ployed IN transporting passengers ana merchandise
on Grand river, In Michigan, as required by the
Iavlsatlun ActS. me court below nelu tnot thQ
waters were navgable and mat the commou
law doctrine as 10 navigabity OF waters has
no application In this country, the fact or nayigaS
DlcnesS depending not upon the ebb ana iOW OF the
tide, but upon the actual navgable capacity Of tho
stream, aud as the voyage, though commenced and
ended within the State. the continuation Of the
transportation OF freight from one state TO another
IL forms n link in commerce among the States, ana
the vessel 80 engaged Is subject the navigation acts
and liable for the penalty. This Court eilirms It'd
decree below, remarkng that It Is unable 10 draw ~
distinct line between the authority OF Congress Ia
tlafa IN hafu
the States when extending through two or moro
States aud when 1t is confined within the limits
OF single State. II It's authority does not extend
to an agency IN such commerce so confined its enI
tire authority over Interstate commerce may be-
defeated. Mr.. Justice Field delivered the opinion
DtUist0n from The Circuit court for the EdSteiSt
District or Arkdnsds.-Ihs was an action on d
promissory note. The defence was that the cons
slderation was Illegal being certain bonds issued bE
the State OF Arkansas alter the passage OF her,
secession ordinance. TWO questions arose on which,
consideration OF The note void, on the ground on
public policy. SO that no action could be sus.|
talned thereon in the federal courts. Sec0nd-lt
the bonds were sufficient consideration TO sustain
The action, what was the measure OF damages Z
These questions were certified to this court. wher5
there is also division OF opinion and the case IS
remfcd to the court by law for the purpose OF
ehaog a ccSrI 20 secoranea with me
OF The court IN such cases. Mr.. Justice Nelson de-
llvefed the opinion.
No SIS. Ed0i0adson Ell al. rs. BloonaShiir et al
Appeal nom the Circuit court for the south
ern District OF ORto.--Ths was contest concern.
ing revolutionary claim, the question beng
whether by the will OF Mrs. I1dmondson deceased,s
making certain requests to her husband, Dr. Ed,
mondson, father Of the Claimants title by deScent
To certain lands broken so as TO divest hcE
brothers as heirs aud vest the title In hei husbanh
ana his heirs by virtue OF the devise The court
below held that the will did not disturb the title OF
the heirs OF the testatrlx under whom the parties
In possession claimed ana this court affirm the de-!
there made. Mr.. Justice Clifford delivered the
opinion.
No IS. me ohio and Mississippi Railroad CONF
PAM, Clark, DuTdnt ct al. rs. Amanda Mcclure.
Ecectt3ir. 81 di.-E1j'0r 10 he SnDre01e court OF
I0lca.- Dismissed for want OF jurisdiction. MI.
Justice Swaync delivered the opinion
No. IL. Ori1tfloy--7ne commonwealth 81 Pe,,iaS-
rdntt rs. The quicksilver Eiaf1ig CoapdnM-Cause
dismissed Tor want Of jurisdiction. justice Nelson
delivered the opinion.