The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-02-26
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Suit AGAINST the Receiver or Bank Rep
resenting the StOckho Iders-AHeged Breach
of Contract in a Steamer Purchase The
/ Government COnnscatiug Gold COMA Test
Question.
WASHINGTON, D. G., Feb. "a, 1872.
No. 1la The First National Bank Of Bethel We. The
National Pahqui0que Bank-Error to the Supreme
Court OF Connectcut-The plaintiff In error failed,
and receiver was appointed under the 50th sec.
ton Of the Currency act, The defendant In error
brought suit to recover debt OF 100000, which It
had presented to the receiver and which had
been disallowei by that officer The action was at
common law. and process was served upon tle
representative OF the nank. The plain
Virtue Of tne Of the Garsncy ac
and that the disall0wance and rejection ny the re-
ceyer OF the BANK OF the ne, clam was decslye ad1
and the Judgment was Tor the piantn there. IT 10
here conienaed that the rights OF the parties depend
United states ana general principles OF law applt-
cable to the questions wnlcl arise upon the facts
found and the authority Of the Comptroller OF the
Currency over the national banks. and the effect Of
his acts ia respect 10 them, are to be .etermlned
exclusively BY the laws OF Inc United States The
action OF the Comptroller OF the Currency and OF the
receiver appointed by him In this case is nal and
action Is mantalnable. Goodrich, Avern and
Brewster for palntin IN error: o. +. seymour Tor
defendants.
NO. ia Slaughter, Administrator, vs.. Gerson-
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Maryland.-Ger-
son, through ship broker, sold Slaughter. lntes
cash $4,000 and taking mortgages on the Minna
and the Chester, another boat owned by The
testate, Tor the balance. When the mortgages be-.
came due and unpaid TINS proceeding Was instituted
to OBTAIN sale OF the mortgaged boats: The de-
fence was that the Minna was purchased upon the
false representation that sne drew only three and
hall feet, that being the express and explicit UNDER
standing, for II she drew more water she could
not pe used for the purpose Tor which she was
Dought-to ply between Baltimore and various
points the Chester River wnere u vessel drawing
more Than could not run. Tho allegatlO was
that the made py means OF deceit and
fraud, and cross bill was died to set 1t aside and
for a return Of lie money paid. The Court found
that the ale cations OF the defence were not proven.
and the decree Tor Ger5On, and that The cross
bill be dismissed. Il Is here urged that the evidence
will reverse the decree when properly consld sred
William Schley for appellants; b. W. Huntington for
appellee.
No. lib. Edward j. Coy vs. the United States-Ap-
peal from Circuit Court for the District OF Loui
siana.-Gay q merchant and planter, residing In
Louisiana, placed on the steamer Empire Parish
$1,000 in god coin Of the United States. to be deliv
cred to him, as claimed, at his residence. In the
parish Of Iberve, within the tedera lines; but
wniie iq transit the money was seized by the govern
ment aSd condemned as money on It's passage TO
Bayou Sara, hey Ond the federal occupation
ana WITHIN the rebel lines. The evidence
was cOnflicting but District Judge, VINO
knew tue parties, concluded there was no
unlawful destination intendel, and ordered q res.
toratlOn TO tle cai nant. Tne Circuit Court how
ever, was Of di1ereut OPINION and when heard
there the decree beOw was reversed ana the money
was condemned as coliiscated TO tue government.
II Is here insisted that the evidence Is strongly on
the side OF the claimant. and that III any case any
Olence o. the claimant had 0een Obiterated by the
various amnesty proclamailons, and that there was
therefore no grouad for the connscatioa OF the
property at the trial and final decree. b. T. Mer-
rick for appellant; Assistant Alto rney General Hill
Tor the government
No. III. Chew vs. Brumagen-Error to the
Court OF Errors and Appeals OF New Jersey-Thls
is simply suit for the foreclosure Of O mortgage,
III which the defence set DIP Is an action at law In
New York upon the bond for whlcn the mortgage
was gwen and It's consequent extnguishment.
Inc only ground for Its being brought 10 this Court
IL the constitutional provision requiring full talth
and to he gwen In each State to the public
acts, records and judicial proceedings Of other
States and toe only statute IN question In this case
Is that regulating the practice OF the law In the
State Of New YORK And IL Is here insisted tnat the
Courts Of hew Jersey have declared In the case in
the most positive terms that they were bound py
this constitutional provision aud oy the statute IN
question: and ny the judicial determination OF It's
provisions by the Colrts OF New YORK, and that
their decision was based upon and in entire mar
muny all these. IL Is therefore urged that tnls
Court has no jurisdiction To review the Case John
H. Reynolds for plalntln IN error: Il. 1. Green for
delendaut.