The New York herald., 1872-12-12


from the date Of the loss in May, 1854, until May,
1884, when she passed out OF Its hands by sale
that she frequently was within the jurisdiction OF
the Court after the loss and could have been pro-
ceeded against On this state or facts the Court
held that the lien for the value OF the wheat had
become stale from neglect to enforce II, and that
liable. having % become the property OF bona ds
purchaser without notice. The libel was, there
The s no9ss 1sga nas
Of itself disturb maritime lien, and
stance than mere lapse Of It'll time % must be made to
appear before the equity upon which the doctrine
based can arise It Is said that II the vessel was
ant did not know it. This Court fnd the facts for
.s1 MDoi!snt and sustain his view OF the case, and
and direct decree sSs G1 libel
No. 81 Reybold vs. The United states-Appeal
from rhe Court Of Claims-The owners OF the
steamer Express chartered her to the government
risk In s1s Ss
frozen over and no crafts were running but
government and ferry boats, the Express being at
OF the master. to proceed to Gesboro and was lost
on the trip. The Judgment was that the loss was
%as meIn % the state Of which
owners, and that, although the existence OF
5as war ma may have been one Of the reasons for
mote cause to bring the loss within the risk
assumed by the government. This Court affirms
relief must come from Congress. The court OF
Claims has no power to entertain suit based
1pyis Se,iysrad Ca ot 9 s0cn character Mr Justice
No. SO. Hedrfck vs. Huches-Error to the Cir
cult Court for the District OF Mssouri-This
was contest concerning quarter section Of
below was for the defendant, who is the vendee Of
parties claiming title by patent from the govern
N
erty. me Court regarded the long and undisturbed
possession OF the defendant as conclusive OF his
rights and as bar to the action. This Court takes
the same view and af1rms the Judgment. Mr..
Justice Bradley delivered the opinion.
No. %. Prout vs.: Robey-Appeal from the su-
was brought to establish title to certain real estate
In washington which was under perpetual lease
to the mother OF the claimant. The property had
been estranged by the acts OF second husband Of
the lessee, who, after her death, exercised au-
thorty over It, and executed conveyance OF it to
the Catholic Church years after the heir learned her
rights, and by this action succeeded in establishing
them, the facts warranting decree for her below,
which Is here affirmed. Mr.. Justice Swayne deliv-
cred the opinion.
Nc. 4s. Cheney ct al, vs. Van Arsdale ct al
Error to Circuit Court for Eastern District OF Wis
consin.-This action was brought by the defendants
alleged to have been illegally assessed on cast iron
thimDle skeins and pipe boxes manufactured by
the then ane question was upon the construction OF
verdict was against the Collector, Cheney, below,
and the government brought the case here where
tne Judgment entered on the verdict Is reversed,
the Court holding that the Court below erred In
insructing the jury that the articles manufactured
Dy the complainants were exempt from duty. Mr..
Justice Strong delivered the opinion.
No. so. Frow VS.. De La Vega-Appeal from the
Circuit Court for the Western District OF Texas
The bill in this case charged Frow an number of
others with attempting to defraud De La Vega out
OF certain lands In Texas. Defaults were taken
against FrOw and some others, which were subse-
quently made judgments absolute and the ques-
tion was here whether the plaintiff was entitled to
redress on o judgment by default, In advance OF
nnal DEGREES against those who appeared and de-
tended the case. This Court reverses the order
making the judgments pro c01stesS0 absolute, say
ants favor he will then be entitled to final decree
against all. including defaulting parties. But a
nnal decree on the merits against defaulting de.
fendant alone. pending the continuance OF the
cause against others, would be incongruous and
illegal. Mr.. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion
in bankruptcy OF Downing-Appeal from the Cir
cult Court for the District of Missouri.-This was
the affirmance OF decree giving to the creditors
OF downing certain property which he had trans
ferred to Massey by bill OF sale before bankruptcy
The Court below, finding, further, that there had
been no record made Of the sale Massey having
neglected to file his bill of sale held that the
transfer did not put the property beyond the reach
OF the creditors, and the decree was for the
assignee This Court sustained that view OF the
facts and affirm the decree. Mr.. Justice Field
delivered the opinion.
No. co. Dillon Vs. United States-Appeal from
the Court of Claims; and No. 81. Home Insurance
cult Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
The Chief Justice announced the afirmance of
the judgments in these cases, no opinion being
written in either OF them.
Starr ct al. vs. City of Salem-Error to the Cir
cult Court for the District OF Massachusetts.