The New York herald., 1871-11-10
T HE COUR r T S.
Alleged Diamond smuggling-Mra Wurts's
Will-Action for Medical Services--
Decisions- Business in the
General Sessions
UNITED STATES SUPREME CcuaI.

Validity ef Territorial OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
OF Bankruptcy COurts-Suit 10 Recover Tor
Supplies Sold TOR the Rebel Army--Con-
tracts for Slaves Before The Emancipation
Proclamation. 90,
WASHINGTON, NOV. 9, 1871.
No. 100. Smith us, .Sheeley-Error TO the circuit
\ Court for Nebraska. This was an action III eject
ment brought by Smith 10 recover possession OF
lot OF land In Omaha. The case turned upon the
point whether deed TO him from one Mitchell was
valid Mitchell having previously conveyed the same
property, by deed TO the NeInana Vailev na.h ine M
defeated the title or the plaintiff. 1t Is here insisted
that the deed to the bank was void because there was
no such corporation, the Territorial Legislature.
not having authority 10 Incorporate bank, unless
Its action was confirmed by Congress which nad
not been done on the other hand 1t is maintained
that the charter of corporation cannot be declared
void IN collateral suit, but can only be 80 declared
by proceeding Instituted drecuy against IL on DC
half OF ihe State.
183. Sn,ith vS. Mason, Assignee, &c,-Appea from
the Supreme Court, d. C.-Thls suit was brought by
the assignee against the partners of bankrupt for
an account. The fund was in the district In the
hands OF the attorney OF this firm, and the Bank
ruptcy Court was asked to enjoin payment to the
non-accounting partners or to the paint in error.
who had set up claim and VINO had been cited to
assertit At This point the surviving partners IN
tervened ana set up their rights. The Bankruptcy
subject matter and the parties, decided that
the. debt originally due to the assgnees
those parties being present or having nolice) and
that the fund in the hands OF the attorney OF the
the insolvent Smith appealed from the Bank
rnptcy Court to the Court in banc where the inlunc
tton against payment to the surviving partners was
dissolved, and an order was made that the money
be paid over to them, and without notice to Smiths
assgnors II is here urged that the Court IN Bank.
ruptcy erred In assuming jurisdiction TO adludcate
the right under the circumstances stated, and that
tho Court in banc erred In making decree in the
case. II had appellate Jurisdiction only, and should
have remanded the case to the bankruptcy Court
for further proceedings.
No. 101. Hanaur us. DOdne-AppeM from the
Circuit Court for Arkansas.-This was q suit
tain promssory notes, and the defence was that the
notes were given without consideration, as they
were given for supplies to the rebel army, which
States The Court charged that II the goods were
sold in the common and ordinary course OF trade, ana
the only nducement to the sale OF the goods on the
agreed to he paid by Hanaur, then The sale was
legal and Valid although the frm knew thai Hanaur
Under this charge the verdict for the plaintiff,
and Hanaur brings the case here contending that
The instruction OF the Court was In error and that
the Court erred IN refusing to instruct that II the
firm selling the goods knew at the time OF the sale
that Hanaur was purchasing goods & for the rebel
army to carry on the war against the United States
then the verdict should be for the defendant.
No. 19s. Holmes ana VIE ps. Seuier, Admlntstra.
tor, fcAppeal from the Circuit Court for the dis.
trict OF Arkansas; and No 232. osborn cs Nicho-
son ct a1-Error to the Circui, Court for The dis
trict Of Arkansas. The question presented In these
before emancipation, and ls the same as argued in
white vs.ssiart last spring. The Court below held
Constitution OF Arkansas and the amendments to
the constitution OF the United States, illega and
yoid,'' and the judgments were accordingly. 1t IS
here cOntended that such contracts made prior 10
emancipation are not affected by tnat event, nor
the obligation OF auch contracts be impaired by
otherwise.