The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-12-19
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Complicated Case-Claim by an Allen
for Captured Sugar Declared Void
Validity OF Certain Railroad and
County Bonds-COnstituttOnali of the
Prohibition Law-ImplicatiOn Against
State Supreme Court.
WASHINGTON Dec. Is, 1872.
No. 0. Original-Roberts ct al. vs.. United
States-Motion Tor Mandamus.-In this case the
petition was dismissed, and motion was made for
new trial. Subsequently application for an al
lowance Of appeal was made, upon stipulation be-
tween counsel for claimant and the Attorney
General that it should not prejudice the motion
for new trial; and stnl, thereafter upon motion
and by mistake of associate counsel for the
claimant, the appeal was allowed Afterward,
upon motion OF associate counsel the Court re-
voked the order allowing the appeal. Thereupon
forward, but the Court, or its own notion refused
to entertain 1t, as an appeal had been allowed, and
ance OF appeal was without Jurisdiction, as the
case had passed to the records OF the higher Court
The remedy sought Is mandamus to compel the
Court OF Claims to proceed to hear and determine
the motion for new trial and 1t Is commended that
the mere order OF the Court allowing an appeal
does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction until the
appellant has by perfectng his appeal removed the
cause from the records OF the Court from which
the appeal Is taken. Thomas Wilson and II. M.
Corwine for motion.
No. 70. Montgomery vs.. United States-Appeal
from the Court OF Claims.-Thls was an action to
recover $4,000, the same being the proceeds OF
certain captured sugar seized in Louisiana soon
after the occupation OF the city of New Orleans by
the federal troops. Montgomery's claim is based
upon contract made with one Burbridge as the
agent Of L. L. Johnson, Of the parish OLA Fourche,
by which the sugar crop OF that plantation for 1862
was sold to him. Montgomery was British SUBJ
)ect, resident in New Orleans, where his contract
with Burbridge was made, alter the occupation of
the city by the Union troops Johnson Burbridge's
principal, being resident Of the parish named,
which was still within the rebel lines The Court
OF Claims held that the true construction of the
contract was that It was an execatory contract Of
between the parties want Of actual delivery OF the
property before the seizure Dy the United States;
and that the intention to have the title to the prop
erty pass would not avail without actual delivery.
1t was also held that the contract In fact be-
tween an enemy and an alien friend, and was,
therefore, void. The appeal maintains that this
ruling was error. T. J. u. Fuller for claimant; G.
II. Hill for government.
No. IA. Magwre vs.. Tyler ct al-Error to the
Supreme Court OF Missouri.-This is a contest con-
corning certain lands in Missouri, commenced by
Magwire to establish his title under Spanish
Grant to one Brazeau. The Judgment below was
for the defendants there and here, and this Court
subsequently reversed that judgment on writ Of
error, holding that the legal title was in the
plaintiff and remanded the cause with directions
to the Court below to proceed de noro, In accord
ance with the opinion in the case. The State
Court tried the case again, and again decided
that the plaintiff had no right to equitable relief
under his petition ana proofs and that the legal
that the paint admitted the legal title to be In the
defendants. The case comes here again to have the
tSeS h Ss tine paes eg
tine State will not concede their rights 1t Is here
said by the defendants that the decision OF this
Court before was based on an issue not made in
| the case, as the question OF who held the legal
title was not involved, and that 1t was therefore
corune non jtdice, and required explanation now
| L. s. Glover and ]. NJ Carlisle for plaintiffs In
error; Is. A. Hill for defendants.
No. $50. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Rail.
road Company VS.. County OF Ot0e-Certifcate OF
Division from the Circuit Court of Nebraska-The
questions upon which the judges below disagreed,
and which are presented here In this case, were
whether statute Of the State, approved February
49, 1869, authorizing the county to issue bonds In
aid Of railroad outside OF the State conflicts with
| the constitution Of the State OF Nebraska, and,
whether the County Commissioners OF Otoe county,
| under that act, could lawfully issue the bonds
| from which the coupons In suit were detached,
purpose indicated, and also a tax to pay the same
having been submitted to vote of the people OF
the county. The railroad company maintain the
they were not authorized by vote Of the people
and are invalid for that reason, and for the further
and not subscribed, as Is the general form Of such
aid. submitted on the printed briefs. j. M. Wool.
worth for plaintiff; g. B. Scofed for defendant.
No. $780, Bartemeyer Vs. State Of Iowa-Error to
the question OF the constitutionality OF the Pro.
hibitory Liquor law Of Iowa. The plaintiYin error
was convicted under 1t and here maintains that it
is in conflict with the federal constitution because
1t forbds the importation of liquors into the State
except under certain restrictions. and discriln-
mates in favor OF the citizens and products Of the
State against the citizens and products of other
States, by providing for the manufacture and sale
OF beer, cider from apples or wine from grapes,
currants or other fruits grown in Iowa." These pro.
Visions are urged as in CONFLICT with those
provisions OF the federal constitution which vest
in Congress the power TO regulate commerce
with foreign nations and between the States, and
forbid preference in favor OF the ports Of State
over another and the laying OF impOsts or duties
on imports or exports. II Is also said that the law
deprives OF property without due process that the
liquor In question was owned by the accused at
the date oil the passage Of the law and that 1t Is
exempt from the operation OF the provisions. The
case is submitted on the printed briefs William T.
Dittoe Tor plaintiff in error Henry O'Connor for
State OF Iowa.
COURT or APPEALS CALENDAR.
AIpANy nac 10 1870