The New York herald., 1872-11-21
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,

The Liability Of United States Marsh als-
Bankrupts' Assignees-War Risks ON
Vessels Chartered by tho Govcrnment-
An Important Internal Revenue Case
The Statute or Limitations.
WASHINGTON, d. O., Nov. 20, 1872.
No. 251. Frow vs. De La vega-Appeal from the
Circuit Court for the Western District of Texas
The bill In this was filed by the appellee, who
charged Fr0w, associated with twelve Others with
attempting to defraud him OF certain lands in
Texas by means of q forged testtn,onfo vfzia deed
purportng to be a conveyance from De La Vega to
one League. Decree was taken pro conJeSSO against
Frow and some others, which was subsequently
the order making this decree absolute set aside
was denied, and this Is an appeal from the order
denying the motion, the appellant contendng that
there was no ground for granting the order COM
planned of. The proceedings below appearing 10
have been in every way regular, the appellee sub.
mits that decree must be affirmed. p. Phillips for
appellant; j. j. Durant for appellee.
No. 253. Perham vs. Way ct al.-Error to the Cir.
cult for the District Of Indiana-This is suit to
make the sureties on the bond OF United States
Marshal Rose, OF Indiana, liable for the loss sus
tanned by a false return made by him as Marshal
Perham held the note of party in Indiana for
$1,000 which, as his property was confscated by
the District Court upon the return Of Rose that he
had seized the note, thereupon the note was sold
to the maker for about 0nehalf its face. Per-
ham now. seeks to make the sureties pay
return, IN consequence of which the note (al the
while IN his possession In Kentucky was rendered
without notice to him and without proper process
OF law. This Court, having on FORMER occasion
decided that IL was necessary for the Marshal to
have the note In his actual possession before
making such return, the only question now pre-.
sented Is whether the sureties are liable The
Court below held that under the ruling of this
because Of the false return OF the Marshal and that
therefore Perham's claim on the note was good
ana could be enforced against the maker It is here
a tinnn nrn.
ceedings cannot be attacked in this case by well.
settled authority, and that therefore the plainti
must recover OF the sureties. Coburn Dye and
Harris Tor appellants; John B. Niles for appellees.
No. 254. Massey and Downing VS.. Allen, Assignee
in Bankruptcy OF Downing.-Appeal from
the Circuit Court for the District Of Mis-
scuri.-Downing, the bankrupt, with whom
Massey resided, executed to her a bill
of sale Of the premises situated in the city OF St.
Louis, which conveyance was kept by Massey with
out being recorded There was no formal transfer
of the property. Downing subsequently failing his
assignee sought to reach this property for the
benefit OF his creditors. The Court held that the
transfer was not followed by such delivery and
Downng's creditors, and the Judgment was for the
assignee.
1t is here contended that as there Is no alega-
tion OF fraud, and no dispute that there was full
consideration for the transfer the property should
not be taken by the bankrupt's assignee without a
return to Massey Of that consideration. Where
there Is no actual intentional fraud, 1t is said
Courts Of Equity do not set aside q sale without
requiring the consideration to be repaid. Krum
and Dillon for appellants; Lubke, Player and
Hitchcock for appellees.
No. 256 Reyb0ld ct al. vs. United states Appeal
from the Court OF Claims.-The owners OF the
steamer Express chartered her to the government,
they taking the marine and the government taking
the war risk. In January, 1865, when the Potomac
frozen six or eight inches thick and the chan
mel was only kept open by government steam
ers and lerryboats, the Express, being at
Washington, was ordered to proceed to
GiesborO, and did so considering the order impera
tive, though the master did not think 1t safe to
cross the river. The result the loss OF the ves-
sci and claim for her estimated value. The jud0.
Ment below was that the loss was occasioned 6y
the state OF navigation, which was marine risk,
to be borne by the owners; and that, although the
fact that war existed may have been one OF the
reasons why the trip was ordered still Il was too
remote cause TO bring the loss within the war
risk assumed BY the government. The appeal
maintains that the trip being made by military
orders against the will Of the owners the govern
ment is responsible for the loss. The same ques.
ti0n 10 presented in number OF other cases before
the Court. Mr. Fuller for appellant, Mr.. Hill for
government
No. 257 starr VS.. Lamb ct al.-Appeal from the
Circuit Court for the district OF Oregon case
concerns the title OF block 2ls in the city OF Port
land, Oregon which was acquired with title to
other lands by one Lownsdaie from the United
States under the Donation act. The patent was
applied for la the name OF L0wnsdae's vile, and