The New York herald., 1871-03-02

Interference of state Triouaals with Proceed
iaas In Federal Courts-Proscriptive Laws
Of Louisiana During the War.
WASHINGTON, March l. 1871.
No. 9a Henrp amy Us. John Barkhotder et ais
Error TO the Circuit Court for the District OF Iowa.
This Is another OF the Western bond cases The
county OF Des Moines having issued and repudated
such a judgment was obtained thereon, and per-
ernprory mandamus ordered and served on the
Supervisors, commanding them TO levy a tax
sariicient pay H. The Supervisors neglected still
10 levy the tax and by The code or the State they
shereoy became pers onally liable for the debt; and
this acuon is TO enforce that liability. The
Issued by The state Court restraining the
supervisors from evying the tax but now ihstand-
ing sucn process tiey were proceeding 10 levy the
tax wnen iney attached by the State Couri and
put under bonds 10 obey Le Injunction, which bonds
were still In lorce. IL was also pleaded that the
SeatGtes making them personally laDe mad been re-
Peaei. The plantln demuned, setting up that
these reasons We're assigned oy the defendant as
good cause why the mandainns should not issue,
anu they wele deemed ipsujcient by tue State
Court ana tnat the stale courts have no authority
70 lnleTIere WIN sop Proceedings III federal
court, either by mJtnclun otherwse that the
de endants were personally liable the same, not
ella am the repeal was void. fhe Court o,erruled the
demulle aud The cause IL here Tor review upon the
questions mus presented.
No. 90.-A. l. ~ Us. A. r. S'e,rdrt q Co.-Error 10
the Circuit Court for the District OF Louisiana
Ahis u atNoH oH IL HOtt vi LeNy's maze IN Au-
gust, 1860, and delivered 10 stewart Il Co The de-
fence the Louisiana statute OF prescription Of
hse years. The judgment was for the plaintiffs be-
low, the Court holding that statute did not run
during the time that the plaintiffs were debarred
troin commencing tnelr acton by reason OF the eX-
lstence ol war. Tue piahtin IN error insists that
prescription Is governed by The law OF the former
OF. IA ether words, the law the State, and when
the law relating 10 IL is ascertainea II governs all
IuncIa proceedings, whether the same instituted
A
ciAzen OF anO ner State against citizen OF Lousj-
ana on q LOUISIANA contract must be determined
the same as II between sac citizen OF Louisiana
The prescription OF that State was against minors
anu in.erGl tsd persons aud also galnst cItZens OF
another state. The courts OF the State nave held as
between their own citizens tnat parties were bound
70 sue when the war terminated and that they dld
net nave i've Years from that date winch TO sue;
And /. Is maintained that tnis Is The law Tor the
courts OF the United States, wnicn VIII follow the
incorporation placed upon the Louisiana code by
tue LOUISIANA courts. IL Is also contended that the
&C. OF lS0s by rue construction Of its phraseoOxy
ls limited us application TO cases 70 which the
United States are party. The de endants IN error
MAINTAIN the correctness OF the decision below Tor
the reasons gwen.
No. o. TIE Thttddelphta, Wilmington ana Bait
more Railroad Company rs. John DubolS-Error
70 tie Circuit Court Tor the District OF Maryland
The defendant IN error claimed damages in the
court relow OF ihe railroad company FOR alleged
infiingements OF patent right granted to HIM for
an Improvement in the mode OF building piers for
bridges. The defence that the letters patent
were obtained by fraud and imposition, the pat
cntee not having been the original inventor, and
much conflicting evidence was ad2uced on the trial
ON :Dat point. The Court below, however ruled IN
favor of the plaintiffs below, ami the verdict was
against the company for $4,000. Tue writ oil error
brings up tue record Tor review and the facts In evi
0ence are considered al len Ith in the decision.