The New York herald., 1872-11-20
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

COoked-up Case and q Wiley Defence
Spoon and Fork ContrOversy-lm.
portant to Insurance COmpanics-Inter-
nal Revenue Seixures-AppcaI from the
Court Of Cla inns.
WASHINGTON, Nov 10, 1872.
No. $50. Emily +. Wiley vs. Truman Cook
Appeal from the Supreme Court Of the District OF
Columbia.-This bin was filed by Cook to recover
1000 from Mrs. Wiley for professional services in
the prosecution OF her claim as heir disributee
OF nlleston p. Brown. The defence was that
defraud her, Mrs. Wiley had Withdrawn her
business from his hands, and that he had acquiesced
and that he was not therefore entitled to recover.
The decree below that Mrs. Wiley performed her
contract to pay Cook the $4,000, the Court finding
that the services were rendered.
The frauds alleged below are urged here by the
appellant as o reason for the reversal of the de-
cree The appellee submits that the question being
one OF fact, this Court win not 60 back Of the de.
but will affirm it, A. @. Riddle and J. d. Mcpherson
for appellant; W. I. Mettingly for appellee.
No. l6s. Gorham Manufacturing Company vs.
white-Appeal from the Circuit Court for the
Southern district Of New York.:-This case was ar
to recover damages for an alleged Infringement OF
handles: The Court below found that there
was no infringement because there was
ana 'uGis' the judgment was for White. Il
was the same, while there was not difference
enough in the ornamentation to be noticed by the
Skilled in The art Of demgning.then there was no
protection for patentees OF designs. This Court
sustains the theory OF the appellant, and reverses
the decree. The opinion was delivered by Mr. Jus
tice Strong. Observation-Disclosures Miller, Field and
Bradley.
No. 15o. Phoenix Insurance Company vs. Hamil-
ton ct al-Error to the Circuit Court for the North
crn District OF Illinos.-This case was argued at
the last term OF the Court. The question involved
was whether the dissolution OF frm during the
term Of policy Of insurance, and the renewing OF
ne pScy By ee Of e m
surers.. was such Misrepresentation and
concealment as would avoid the policy,
Ing Under under writings, having verbally vel y agreed greed
to continue the business under the same
firm name and in the same manner as before. The
Court below found that II the verbal agreement,
was carried out and the insurance was effected in
course OF the business and upon grain received in
the same name and in pursuance or the agreement
then the plaintiff could recover, and this Court
affirms the judgment. MIR Justice Bradley delivered
the opinion Mr. Justice Clifford dissented
No. ls7. Erskine vs.. Hombach-Error to the Cir
cut Court for the Eastern district OF Wisconsin,
this was an action of trespass brought by HON.
bach against Erskine, as o collector Of internal
revenue, for wrongful seizure OF tobacco on a
charge Of an attempt to defraud the government
the claimant and the case came here the collector
insisting that the trespass would not lie In such
case and that the claim must fail because there was
no allegation that an appeal was made to the Com.
mssiOners OF Internal Revenue to abate the tax al
legged to have been illegally assessed. This Court
Overrues both these objections and affrms the
judgment below. Mr. Justice Fields delivered the
opinion.
No. 373. Solomon ct al vs. Graham-Error to the
Supreme Court OF Louisiana.-Dismissed for want
Of Jurisdiction.
No. 223. United States vs. Baird, and 224. Baird
vs. United states-Cross appeals from the Court OF
Claims.-This was an a0nrmance Of a Judgment or
the Court OF Claims giving Baird q portion OF o
claim for furnishing locomotives to the govern
ment, the Court finding that the Judgment was
correct as to both appeals. Mr.. Justice Swayne
delivered the opinion.
No. 225. Morgan VS.. United States-Appeal from
the Court of Claims-Ths was an afirmance OF O
judgment in favor OF the government on a claim
set up by Morgan for the loss OF vessel chartered
to the United states during the war. The question
was whether tke government was responsible for
the loss in consequence OF the ship having been
ordered to sea against the Judgment OF the ship
officers as to safety, the government being the in.
surers against war risks only. Mr.. Justice DAVIS
delivered the opinion.
No. III. Philpot ct al. vs. Cymnigen, Executrix.-
Error to the Circuit Court for the Northern district
OF lllinois.-This was suit on o promissory note
to which the defence was-no consideration. The
verdict sustained the validity OF the note, and the
judgment was for the executrix, and 1t Is affirmed
by this Court. Mr.. Justice strong delivered the
opinion.
No. 1856. Gregg vs. Moss-Error to the Circuit
Court for the Northern district OF Iilinos.-Thls
was Judgment for Gregg In an action alleging an
Indebtedness by Moss to one Kellogg who is repre-
and the Court found the Indebtedness to exist.
This Court finds the same state Of facts and ailrms
the Judgment Mr.. Justice Miller delivered the
opinion.