The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1871-06-23
interesting md imp"tH"' >ase-
,,,w cen. Hsadtcy L. Johnson ke-
o,,crcd hts Property.


:. :. ,-,;I known IL many of our readers
,,.', I,r;nc the late war the property OF
'.,,nrr,l Hradlrv I. johnson was Soithy a
t,.r ,rrt,r = decree Of the Circuit Court
49, Frrdrrick county. hut ii may not be rs
',rrlljy known that unnn tue ter
-u.r.tiau Of the war General Johnson com
',..,,l ,rn,r,diugs lur lis recovery. when
.,. ,inglly terminated i'll his favor. me
story of The case is briefly ~ follows: On
49, gi>f nC December. 1872 Is. 1. Johnson
,\r,i.,r,l 4 mortgage upon his residence,
..,fn,.r ai I'd and Court streets. 10 MIS-. par
-, Robertson. aud on the 18th al May,
,>i. iu>t prior 10 his gong into the Gen.
..hri,,y. he conveyed the mortgage prop
-, +, William j. Ross. Esq. i'll trust Tor
~. l3up {. johnson, his wife. On The I'd
49,, ii, October. 1861, Mrs. Robertson flied
r,u ul foreclosure in the Circuit Court
- rbj> county agliliS. General Johnson
.,I vifr. and Mr.. Ross a> trustee. The
.l i!L...cd thai Is. +. johnson and vile,
vbu were then in She South, within the
,...nIrdcr,tc lines. were non residents, and
,,qyrd an order vi publication against
carn. -. A..
me court passed IN order Of publication
H.,,rin- The colIplanantS 10 give notice
".n.r awr.h Tor four weeks before the
t.,f, Ily ol November. 1861. warning them
.,arr,,, ar and answer on or before the lSt
ia, q. March. 1862" subsequently GER
,.a..'c was lied, dated April Sd, 1862, stat
ig. fhi, the order "waS published in the
W:~g}a,pi ERon. printed in Frederick,
once q week for four weeks prior to the Isl
ia, ii March. 1862. Mr.. Ross answered
....hmiE,ing 10 such decree in the premise:
- ,uay l,r right No testimony was takor
III lar cause, and on the 4th of April, 1862
decree Was passed taking the bill pro con
:. ,...a> Iu Johnson and wife, and appoint.
.u- }. trustee IL sell the moltgagcd proper
-. After the war. and on the 3lSt of bee.
80. johnson and wife filed a petition Ii
,hr Circuit Court. alleging that in May
l~l, they had left Maryland and remained
w,hin the hclligcrcnt@ lines of the Con
,aGrr:tc States during the late war, and
rgJr ;hc whole proceedings TO forecloSc huG
taken place during the war, when they
,aljd not have notice; that the decree hat
@,n catered 10y mistake, which they ha(
uuy discovered the day bcfore-DecumbcI
80. lNi.-and they PRAYED 10 be permitted
,oaupral from the decree. The cause went
L. the Court ot Appeals, when divers pro
p.,rin-> We're had not of general interest
Ia the course or which il WAS retu, ned tt
the Circuit Court. from whose order Gen
o.. hu>un again appealed.
r"u the last appeal Two questions were
~, nlri 10 the Court oi -hppcalS-lirSt
lie effect ol their first order remant!iny the
Us. without either affirming or reler>in.
IHc decree, anu second, the question OF
alien enemy WAS again presented. Upol
TIN, first question the court decided thai
.i"hu>un had Il right 10 appear and answer
up"n the cause being rcmandrd, rs if nc
dr"rrc h1d t'ccn passed. With reference tC
i.rr other Iuc.liun, the court decided that
al huu@h the QUESTION WAS argued upon
llc former appeal, Yet ii WIS not properly
t'l.r" tic court. and although the cOull
had. III the ease Of Dorsey, then referred to
,"rldrd upon what WAS supposed u bt
-""d and satisfactory ground that the no.
jyr, Il HuIy @lNcn, was sum lent 10 malu
tan lhr jurisdiction OF the court III ordering
>gIr OF m1rtgt.cd property rs against {;
Hortga@cr, who had, up TO the bcginnin.
a Tie var. been Il resident OF MarylaI
aud who hai voluntarily gone within the
confederate line, during the war and re-
njinCd there. Yet since that decision The
Question hii ARISEN i'll the supreme Court
al ne United States, and had been thcit
differently drcidcu. That the Supreme
court had decided with regard to notice t
~urh parties, being within the encny's
Ifuc>, that "a notice directed TO them ant
published in 4 newspaper w:ss Il mere idl;
lurm. They could not lawfully sc nor obey
Il, t. To them the proceedings were lchOii,
c4F FGHdinCTer0t9re." Whcrcupon the court
,Jtrl that wDic they wo'lld not Hesitate tc
a5Hrr" to their original opinion were the
question not Il .iuIi>dictiunal one only, ''ycl
~ nNi"W OF The possible conflict and em5ar.
Ia-,lncnt that may occur in regard to title,
when called collatcraIiy into question n
>)ltl> in The United States court, on
Tue ground of defective jurisdiction, aro
dcrln il juaiciolis to make our decision
conform H. lntt Of the Supreme Court upon
TN subJect.> They therefore reversed thu
decree OF III" Circuit Court aud sent the
case back, with full leave to the appellants
70 appear and answer. This was Il com.
li"lr gaining of the case 10y johnson, as he
h.'d Il right TO pay the mortgage dcDt and
recover his property, which Lc has DONE
trc"trlCE Eranlsner.