The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-01-10
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

RedaciuG the Legal 4 ender Question 10 ?
Fine Point-A tOunty Alleged 10 Have
pudsated Its Bonds and Refused TO -
Ce"pons at Maturity -Import. 60
Against the Washington aud
lcge as to the Kem"vai Of >"e 100
M 4, noo,ov NO ,u,.a-Error to The Court or
kppeas ar Konrucky this case the court OF Ap.
,eais oil Kentucky anh med a Judgment oil the lower
state Court without passing upon the legal tender
question said TO be involved In 1t; but nasmuch as
she Court beiOw passed upon That ques-
ston It Is maintained here that this Court
may review the question The case was
this:-ln 1859 Dooley rendered q balance due
u legal tender notes, Smith refused although
be mao u along received interest IN that currency.
DuOley sued Snitn IN equity 10 conipei MN 20 re-
Ceive tne mOney and surrender the note. anu smith
sued UOUley to recover the amount In com. Ine
Court sustained the demurrer 10 DOoleys petition
On tile ground the equity was without jurlsdiction
there was IN TINS case. In the latLsr case Oooley
answered, setting up his tenier AMI the refusal 20
lCcepi, and tue tact tnat lie had previously sueu
smItn concernIlg the same matter. A general de-
@urrer was med TO- tns an sosnu " 1nat
;lded in TINS Court nad rendered the
menI AGAINST UoOey for the numDer Of dollars 1e.
nai,ded In lawiui lender. Dooey appealed 70 tne
Court OF Appeals where this question Was ailirmed
on the technical ground that the tender Was az &C.
i've, the merits oil the case not being touched upon
IN Ho
because tae legal tender question, wnicn tile lower
btale Court ned to NC the only question involved,
DOT decided Dy nor In any way before the court
Of Appe lis. Gu the Ot her hand, u Is suumtted That
the I,leatlings IN the AMI the Judgment OF Inc
Stale Court below snow concluhvely that the legal
tender question was involved AS the prlncipai ques-
tou, anu therefore, court has lurlSIic ION TO
review It. Garrett DAVIS Tor plaintiff IN error; W.
W. Wadsw0ftn iOr defendants
No. 81 The County OF Bath ct al. v5. Henry
Amy-lrror TO the Circuit Court for the District OF
u uIOr
the county OF Bath and us County Court, County
Judge and olner officers to compel the levy and col
lection OF tax to paw certain coupons, or interest
warrants attached TO bonds alleged TO have been
ssueu ny the county In payment VI suOscripuo1
D $3.50 QUO to tile capital STOCK OF tiie LeAnson anu
Bio sandy railroad company. Inc Court, sustaining
The validity Of tue bonds aud holding tuat the
county was liable ordered the issue OF The viii, ana
this wrl Of sue out TO reverse The Jug.
nent, and 1t AS maintained tuat tlle CIcun Couis
lad Jurlsulc;lon 10 award me wrlt, there Seins
no DriOr alignment iuereIi and the VIII not oeing
necessary for the exercise oil It's jurisdiction; that
,he Circuit Court erred III ordering tie mandamus
because The amer vi providing LOT tue pa, nent Oh
Inc interest on the honns by the express terms
All act oil The Legislature, leit 10 the discretion Oh
the County Court alu mat ne Circuit Court mad no
urisdC ton over Tue subject matter the bonds and
coupons being issued ny Que Kentucky corporation
10 another kentucky corporation. Jamas b. Beck,
IOnn a. Carlisle anu Montgomery Blair Tor plalntlir
In error; John W. Stevenson and Harry Myers Tor
1eeuuant
No. IS. Trustees OF Jefferson College vs. Wash
md Diners vs.. Same 81. David g. houston vs.
Iruslecs OF Jefferson College, and Washington and
Jefferson College-Error TO the supreme Court OF
PENNSYLVANIA these three bills, relating TO me
same INSTITUTE lon and involving considerations COM
mon 10 all, were argued together aud decided as
one and are here heard together. The case OF
Houston aud others raises me question whether the
contract OF scholarship between the complainants
and others and jefferson College did not interpose
t,np hAI
oil authority 10 the trustees OF tue coue2e
to surrender Ms iorneI urser ev a ave1 ~.
moved nom ConnorsDurs u washington, Ia the
lame county. ....
the same Qucs Ion and the case VI +. ). Collier
and Cihcrs-some vi the meiDUes oil the boaru oI
trustees oil Washington anu Jefferson Coiege-lncJ
coup am o. me college that us trus sees are, under
prelence of autnUriy cOnferra! ny an act Vi inc
tie provisions Of an ACT OF 4th OF Marcn 1865. Dy
wncn tue college was authorized 10 pfovide
for the instruction ol inc seulor ana Juui,r
and SOPHOMORE classes at Conn0rSburg, and
students III mo freshman classes, aud W tue
Scientific and Preparatory Departments anu TIC
Department OF Agriculture ami Art IL Washington,
and Ia remove th,lner the library anu otner nova
bic erty oil tue college, anu to sell or dispose OF
Its real estate-charginS tnat sucn intended act:
AMI ,lOlnss would be aud are In contravenlion Of
tue rights duties ana obliga;ions conferred by the
ACT OF Inc 4Lu OF Malcn. In the case oil Houston
aud others the Court held that the legislation COM
planned of did not Ia point u aci infringe the cont
pIalnants contracts ol scholarship; Du even II the
Contracts were set aside OF anectcd y legsa ion,
yet ubIgaiion canoi he saa 10 he la
legal sense, because the acceptance Oh the obnox-
ious LEGISLATION Uy the Trustees Included the PLAIN
IIfis, that III AL events Inc acts Of Assembly III
question were passed by The Legislature OF Penlsyl.
wanna III the exercise oi power 50 to do reserved
In the original cbal ter vi Jefferson College. IN the
case OF COicr AID Others, Il minority Vi the BDard
OF Trustees vi WASHINGTON and Jefferson Couege, II
was held that the removal Vi the college, under
the acL OF lsVy, did not impair Inc Contracts Of
scnoarsnlp by s,mpN changing the ocS,s s anu anu
held that as tile Compartments did not reply
to the answer OF the MAJORITY VI me boaro ulegina
al intention 10 The classes ol Tie college
Washington, anu dts pose Oi the realty In strict pur
sliance ul tile act ~ 1888. the allegation must Dt
taken 20 I've true, aui the oil must be dismissed
Al the bis were dismissed, AMI u Is mere insisted
that tue court erred IN tnc5e views. Messfs. Wont
A. Villa Ior defenuant, coliege.
uMI1eO STATES CIRCUIT COURT.