The New York herald., 1872-11-02
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

An Old CALIFORNIA; Suit Against tho Cow
crnment-Curfous Instance Of . Sale OF
Confiscated Property-Important suit
Between the State OF Texas and the Ell
Paso Railroad.
WASHINGTON, d. c., Nov. ], 1872.
No. 100. Cross Vs. the United States-Appeal
from the Court OF Claims.-This was claim by
Cross under alease from one Lafrarans OF property
in San Francisco to the government for ten years
at 500 per month"; dated January 1851 The action
was commenced in 1855 to collect rent for three
years then last expiring; but the Court ol of
defect In the transfer under the lease that
the suit could not be maintained. Thereupon
congress passed a Joint resolution authorizing the
Court or Claims to enter Judgment for the claimant
II his equitable claim was found to be good not
withstanding the defect in the lease, and after
SUIT SUIT was brought for rent accruing after the
te ce%ps 81 S the action but
merely and that the Court ines Sad exnaas.sd essd
in that case. The appeal maintains that to hold
tnat the action OF Congress referred only to that
gress was manifestly to do Justice to the Claimant
under the lease, II his claim under 1t was equitable
ana the authority 5 to the Court was 70 give him
government insists upon the theory OF the Court
J. J. Coombs for claimant; c. II. Hill for United
States.
No. 202. Turner vs. Smith-Appeal from the su-
preme Court OF Appeals OF Virginia.-The question
IN ins case is whether sale under the act for the
tricts In disposing Of the fee, also disposes OF
rent charge upon lands. The appellee had such q
commencement of the war; and lived upon the place.
Taking sides with the rebellion, he abandoned
the property and went beyond our lines. The
property being sold for taxes this suit brought
after the war against the purchaser Turner) at
the tax SALE to enforce the Claim Tor annual rent,
I'M 81 a was 0r a
claimant. The Court Of Appeals sustained it and
It. is now here for final review the appellant claim,
and paid State and municipal taxes as own
ers, aud are now estopped from disclaming
S py
having power to declare that the certificate OF the
Tax Commissioners should be such a title. The
the act of Congress under which the sale was
made is void, and contends that the commissioners
rendered the whole proceeding void II 1t were not
otherwise.
+. /. smith for appellant; c. W. wattles for ap-
pellee.
No. sO5. Davis, Governor Of Texas, ct al, vs..
Gray, Receiver Of the Memphis and Ell Paso and
Pacific Railroad Company-Appeal from the Cir
is the reargument OF this cause on printed briefs,
as directed by the Court in the Winter session OF
the present term The case is that Of the Receiver
patents ss IT. no other parties ,S ,oS lands
obtained below to restrain the State action as
prayed, and it was here maintained that the fed
era courts were without authority to interfere by
injunction to control the action Of State public
officers having In charge the disposition Of public
| presentation OF the case, directed reargument by
fling printed briefs on this particular point and
they were now nled for its consideration. The
| company contend that the fact that the
defendants are State officers, acting under color
or authority from the State, cannot prevent the
courts OF the United States from issuing an lnJunc
ton to restrain their doing irremediabe injury to
property in the custody OF this Court by the effect
OF the receivership, and that the fact that the In
junction is as to the disposition OF public lands
does not AFFECT the question Of power no more than
lift was other property. The State contends that
it is her sovereign authority which Is to be affected
and that she is In fact the defendant, and that in
such case the federal courts are by express con-
stitutional provision without jurisdiction to issue
| the writ.
b. r. Curtis and c. Parker for the railroad; 7. J.
Durant for the State.