The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-02-03
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Libel Suit Between Two New England Trans
portntion Comprehensive Town Liquor Law
Against the spirit Of the COnstitution-Im
portnnt Question Touching the Liabilities of
Eudorsers Of Commercial Notes in Different
States.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2, 1872.
No. los. The New Haven Steam transportation
Company Vs. The Steamboat continental and the
New Haven Steamboat Company-Appeal from the
Circuit Court Tor the District OF Connecticut. The
lDel is IN REM The action was brought to
recover damages arising from q collision
peer Northampton and the appellees' steamboat
Continental near the entrance Of the harbOr
new Of s Whereby es Se Sora
ton was sunk. The District Court decided that the
sh that she was runnne IN Violation
Central % range Of two white lights, and that
this was the cause OF The collision. The libel
was accordingly dismissed. The Circuit. Court
affirmed this decree and the case Is brought here
for review, where the appellants go over all the
facts, insisting that the negligence was with the
oficer OF the Continental. q. Donohue J: ;. Beach
and G. X. IngersOi Tor appellants 4. D. owen and
T. e. DOolittle for appelees.
No. 1914. Borteneger vs. State OF Iowa-Error to
the Supreme Court OF Iowa.-This was conviction
under the proaibitory liquor law OF the State. which
declares that no person shall sell or give away, or
keep with intent TO sell, or manufacture spir-
itous liquors, &C., except for mechanical, medi-
cinal, culinary and sacramental purposes, under
penalty OF fine and imprisonment and IT Is here
cOntended that TINS act Of the state Is an abrdg.
mcnt or the privileges and immunitles guaranteed
10 citizens OF the United States BY the fourteenth
amendment TO The constitution. The case Is sub
mtted on the printed briefs.
W. T. Dittoe for appellant: Henry O'COnnOr, At
torney General OF Iowa, for The State.
No. 81. Alden VS.. First National Bank OF Chi
copeeError TO the Cir cult Court for the District OF
Maine.-Ths was an action brought against Alden
an endorser OF prOmissory note. The makers
to Alden who resides at Belfast Me- without date
signature, or any written words upon It's face but
simply with the figures $4,000 written in, with the
request that he would endorse 1t for their accom-
modation. Alden wrote his name on the back OF
pleted II and negotiated IL to one Ulmen the second
endorser thereon, at Chicago. The note, which was
by Ulman and The Ames Manufacturing Company,
and discounted by the bank defendant IN errOr)
in the usual course OF business, ON the 18th April,
1865 without knowledge Of any equities between
the anrecedent parties or OF other facts. No suit
or in Massachusetts, nor was there any evi.
dence to prove that such suit would
have been unavalng, or tnat the makers OF the
note mad lett the State. On this state OF facts the
Court held That the endorser, Alden was liable
in the action under the laws OF Massachusetts,
accordingly for the bank. IL is here commended
that, as there was no liability on the part OF the
endorser until the note passed out OF The hands OF
the makers-Deing purely an accommodation en-
dOrsement-hiS liability did not commence until the
negotiation OF the note AZ Cncago; tnaI MS con-
tract was therefore made In Illinois, and the place
OF performance was as to him IN that State and not
at Boston, where the note was payable and
where the makers were liable. II, therefore,
the endorser's contract was not really made
until the negotiation OF the note the contract was
governed by the laws Of Illinois, and there the suit
against the endorser cannot be maintained until all
remedies have been exhausted against the maker.
Under the ILLINOIS statute the liability of the
dorser is contingent upon the failure TO Of
the MAKER alter due diigence, and II the endOrser
not there liable until failure to recover from the
J. }. d. Fuller Ior plaint in error; Bion Bradbury
| for defendant.