The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-02-09
THE COURT is.
Inttfesling Proceedings In tho United States
Supreme, Brooklyn and New
York City Courts
Tho Jumel Estate--A Patent Suit-A Custom
| House Trial-ihe Lilienthal Tobacco Case;
Motion for New Trial-Alleged Fraud.
ulent Bankruptcy - The Stolen
Observation-Disclosures Of Ex-
Collector Bailey Decisions.
UNITED STATES SUPREME cpuar.


eeizzak the Rolling stock Of Rniiroad CONF
pany for Taxes Agninst special Charter
Stipulations--J uds n,est Amrmed In the C"ss
of Apostle Stoas--Ieesponsibiiisy OF souiher"
Merchants for Business obligations Before
the Vur-vnIldny OF PrOmissery Notes Not
Stamped nj Maturity.
WASHINGTON Feb 8. 1879.
Nos. 90 ana 100. Wilmington and Weldon Rail-
road Company W. Reid. Sheriff and Raleigh and
CASTOR Railroad Company Vs. Same-Error TO the
Supreme Court OF North Carolina. rne proceedings
In these cases were by repevin obtain posses
OF engines seized bv the Sheriff Ia payment OF
certain taxes assessed upon the franchise and roll.
Ing stock Of the companies. The companies relied
in the Court below upon Their charters, Wnlch, IL
was claimed. exempt them from STATE TAXA lon
The Court held the tax wand, aud 1t Is here argued
that the charlers OIL the companies constitute con-
tract between the state and the corporations and
Is not competenC the Legi lature 70 pass any ACT
which will impair The Obligations OF these CONTRACTS
without the consent OF the roads. Carlisle e Nc
Pners0n ana D. +. Moore Ior plalntlis Ill error; w.
a. Bette for defendants.
No. Ats. Stout vs.. People OF the Territory or
Utah-Error to the Circuit Court Tor Utah.-The
following is the announcement made by tue
Chief Justice IN this cause in reference to the
proceedings below III tull:-Four OF the Judges
are OF opinion that on habeas corpus, In
the commitment be shown 10 be indlct-
ment regular III form, and for acrime OF which the
Court has jurisdiction, the Judge canhot dlscnarge
for matters Dennd the indictment, such as irresu,
1arites Ill the summons OF Grand Jury, &c, ana
therefore that the judgment ought 10 DC anrmeu.
The other judges are OF different opinion, think
ing tue summons IN this case wholly void; ana the
Court pelng equally divided Ola this poliil the Juds.
ment must necessarily be aMrnieo.
No. OF. Bethel vs.. Mattnews-Error to the Circuit
Court tor Leuisiana.-Thls was an action on two
promissOrv notes drawn by one Chambllss OF Mis-
sissippi- In January, 1851, payable In November
of that year, to the order OF and endorsed by the
urn OF CnambIiss, Brander Hubbard, OF New Or
leans, and the other in October, 1861, payable six
months after, to his own order, and endorsed by
Chambuss, Brander y Hubbard, IN llqu.
6rm, which, a. alleged, was To assume the notes.
or this firm Matthew'S became an active partner.
The partnership expired by limitation, as alleged,
in 1885,. and it was claimed that Matthew'S was
owner vi One-nal Interest III the partnership ana
Upon the breaking out Of The war Matthews went
to New York aud has since remained there. On Cne
trial the Court ouaa tnat tae arn 0. Drameer
partnership In New Orleans because OF the refusal
Of Brander TO approve OF certain nat tne
BY the war, and that me war wnlcn broke Out soon
after the formation OF Inc partnership Of bran CT.
Chambiiss a Co. dlssO.vea IL. IL Is here insisted
that II the war dissolved the partnership II mad
elect only on The iurure relations oil the members
of the firm obligations toward each OLner,
but the obligations winch nad peen contracted
before the war by the partnership were lett undis-
turbed. such obligations are still valid and bind.
dng. Miles Iayior Tor plantn IN error; 1. J. Durant
Q0r defendant.
No. 9s. Pugh VS.. McCormck-Eror to the Su-
preme Court OF Lousiana.-This was also an action
on promissory note winch was lot stamped ct ma
turlty, but which, upon the application OF the
holder, was subsequently stamped by the Collector
OF Internal Revenue. The note was not only pro-
tested at maturity SO 10 bind Pugh, the endorser,
but after maturity he wrote upon IL waiver OF that
requirement aud his assumption OF all legal
responsibility. The question Was upon these
points, ana the Court held that, although
the note Was originally issued without
Received ~ evidence, because afterwards properly
slammed Dy the revenue Oicer; and that no Stang
was required D7 law 10 the waiver on the back OF
the note made Dy Pugn OF notice OF protest. &c,
and MS assumption OF the legal responsibility. Ine
endorser mere maintains tnat the objection 10 me
inIrod uctUn oil the nOfe evidence was Improperly
Uyerruled, because IL was not shown that the
maker OF the note HAD paid the penalty oil $50 Im-
nosed by the act o. Congress not stamping at
time the stamps were affixed by tile Collector. AS 10
the seconl opiectIon which was also overrued II
gald mat the waiver was a new contract, separate
and distinct from the original anu upon lt lne pro-
per amount Of stamps required ny law should nave
been placed, as lcn as upon the noe Itself. This
agreemeni there ore, was.inadnssl0le IN evidence.
AND should have been excluded. The defendant
IN error CLAIMS that under the act oil March 3, le63
the stamp could have Deen affixed IN cOurt IL the
holder nid left 1t until then, tie note Icing made
drawers default was served on the eadorser
although not by notary IN due time, the question
became simply one OF evidence, ana coiid not be
Regarded as one OF contract same counsel as IN
the foregoing case
No. lOl. Gibson ell al. vs. Warden ct al -Appea
from The Circuit Court for the Southern District O
Ohi0.-1his Is the case Oh chattel mortgage In
Yolving the question whether such an lnstrumen
executed by one partner In his individual name
but scaled with the seal OF the partnership. vii
bind the firm at law, where The INSTRUMENT
itself shows c0ncusively that 1t was In
tended to pe executed IN the name and as th(
act OF the partnership, and the testimony proves
tnat all the partners na consented to the execution
and delivery oil the instrument, ana that the sign
lng by the partner In his INDIVIDUAL name, Instead
of that oil the partnership, was SIMPLY cserca
error on his part. And also the question as 10 the
time and manner OF attaching chatter mortgage
securing one VINO is under liaotiiiy Tor rating
debtor, in banKruptcy. hOadley ana Johnson f0
appellants; o. /. Perry for appellceS.
UNITED STATES ClaCuf c9BSi.