The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-01-23
UNITED STATES SUPREME coua1.

Another Suit Touching the Question of Trca-
sury Notes Legal Tendcrs-The Word
"DolIars' and Its Significance In Contracts
Senator Morrill, Confirmed In I'M Estate In
West virsiaie-The Case Of tho Webb and
Shooting Star. ----A' 49, $500 - II -~s,-
WASHINGTON, D. O., Jan %, 1872.
No. 40. TreblecOck Vi. Wils0n.-Err0r to tho Su
preme Court OF Iowa.-In this case, which Is an
other gold contract case the Court held substan.
TALLY as folows:-Whereas plaintiff here claimed IN
the Court below that he was sautled TO have note
held py him. made by the defendant in error. paid
In gold or silver coin, under the constitution
upon proper construction Of the various clauses
OF the instrument, and the decision below was
against such right this Court has appellate jurisdlc
ton under the twenty fifth section Of the Judiciary
act TO review the decision; The case Of Roswell vs.
dollars PAYABLE R Us terms IN SPECIE sn The e On
IN which the note Is payable there being more than
one kind OF dollars current sanctioned by law, and
mean that the designated number OF dollars shall be
IN 80 Of macy e ned Or ae he act
February U.s. 1862 In declaring that the notes OF the
for all debts only applies to debts when paya-
Bile In money generally, and not to obligations pay.
KIND, where contract for money is by lis terms
made payable In specie or IN coin, Judgment may be
or tor a Ice
0l1rms the case OF Bronson w. Rhodes Il Wall,
| 2O9l.
his dissenting opinion In Bronson vs.. Rhodes
Mr. Justice Brady also dssents for reasons stated IN
his opinion IN Parker vs.. Davis, decided Lass
Monday.
| No. rs. Christmas ct al vs. Gaines ct al.-Appeal
from the Circuit Court for the Southern district Of
| Mississippi bill was filed against Christmas
ct all citizens Of Kentucky together with two Others,
citizens Of Mississippi having for It's object to es.
tablish an equitable assignment OF certain proms:
indemnilying the citizens OF Misslssippi, joined
as defendants, who had become s9retles
| nnding the plantiff to be citizen OF Kentucky
mold that the Circuit Court did not have jurtsdc-
tween citlSess Of derens states; ana iurher that
certain letters of Christmas relied upon TO show the
ASSIGNMENT were not sufficient =. to establish sta IT, as
ceeds Of the notes, and no intention to part with
their possession. MIR. Justice Swayne delivered the
opinion.
No. 10. Armstrong ct al We. Morrlll-Error to the
District Court for the District OF West Virginia.
this case the Court affirmed the title OF Senator Nor
rill to tract OF land in West Virginia originally
granted by the commonwealth Of Virginia to Albert
Clifford delivered the opinion. Mr.. Justice Strong
dissented.
No. "a. Quicker vs. Spalding-Error to the Circuit
Court for the District OF Californla.-This was an
action to recover for the infringement Of
4 patent for the use Of movable teeth
IN saws ana saw plaCeS. a VeTulCC
ana Judgment were rendered Tor the
plaintiff below (5paldlngl; and the case was
brought here, where the Court now reverse the
Court below erred In refusing to admit IN evidence
| to Spalding's and covered the same Invention.
| Mr.. Justice Miller delivered the opinion.
No. 80. The Steamer W. Ii. Webb va. Darling ct
al.-Appea. from the Southern District OF New
| York.-In this case the Court affirm o decree for
damages obtained by the owners OF the ship Shoot
Ing Star against the Webb for alleged negligence IN
| towing the ship from Portsmouth, N II. to New
York, but with modification that 1t be reduced to
$4,000 damages and $3.50 costs. Mr. Justice Strong
| delivered the opinion.
| No. g. Curtis v. WhIting-Err0r to the Supreme
| Court OF Wisconsin. was o controversy con.
corning certain lands In Brown county, Wis, which
| had been sold at sherir's sale and the question
was upon the cOnsttutionaty OF law OF the State
requiring certain notice to be served prior to the
application for o Sherlns deed. The Court below
sustained the law, and this Court a1rms the judg.
ment. Mr.. Justice Miller delivered the opinion.
No. 100. Bank OF West Tennessee vs.. Citizens
Bank OF Louisiana Error to the Supreme Court of
Louisana.-Dismtssed for want OF jurisdiction. Mr..
Justice SwaJne delivered tAe opinion.
No. II. The State Of New YORK We. The Central
Railroad OF New Jersey-Error to the Supreme
Court OF New York.-Dismissed for want of urisdlc.
ton. Mr.. Chief Justice Chase delivered the opinion
z