The New York herald., 1872-11-10
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Suit I'm Re . Government Rihe Contract
The Administration Charged with the
Entire Amount Of Damage to the
Steamer Tappa hammock In tho Brazos
I'm 1s85-Stato Printing for Louisiana
Novel Reason OF state Auditor for
Refusing to Pay.
WASHINGTON d. c., Nov. 9, 1872.
No. 222. United States vs. Justce-Appeal from
the Court Of Caims.-This action was brought to
recover balance alleged to be due the claimant on
o contract to furnish the government 1900
rined muskets The Court of Claims gave
Judgment for the whole sum claimed
$1O,870. The government appeals, claiming
that the contract was not fulfilled that
the arms were not serviceable and did not equal
the sample furnished by the contractor 1t is also
'cOntended that the claimant accepted payment for
the arms at the rate of $l5 EACH instead or $0 the
contract price, on this account, and that such &C
ton on his part concludes him from further de-
mand. The defendant here claims that the arms
were equal to the sample and that his receipt for
the sum paid him. he having executed no acqut-
tance, Is no bar to q claim for the balance. j. II.
Ashton for claimant; q. II. Hill for government
Nos. 22s and 224. United States VS.. Baird and
Baird vs.. United States-Appeal and cross appeal
from the Court of Cams.-Ths claim is for s14l,s7,
which Is prosecuted by Baird as surviving partner
Df the firm Of Baldwin Co., locomotive builders,
In Philadelphia. That firm manufactured fifteen
ceive full pay for any loss suffered by them in
breaking OF other contracts to work exclu-
svely for the government until this con-
Claims found they should receive s2375O,
in consequence OF loss suffered by the exclusive
that amount an Baird appealed, e claiming the full D
amount claimed and the government appealed, in
sisting tnAt as the firm had previously accepted
the sum allowed by the Department in full settle
ment Of the claim this demand should not be sus-
tained Carlisle Il MCPHERSON for claimant;
George II. Williams and william McMichael for
government
No. 225. Morgan ct al. VS.. United States-Appeal
from the Court Of Claims. The claimants char
tered the steamer Tappahannock to the govern
ment under charter party which provided tina:
the war risk was to be borne by the United States.
and the marine risk by the owners In July, 1866,
che steamer then being at Brazos Santiago TIE xas,
under this charter party, was ordered to sea over
q dangerous bar at the mouth Of the BraZos when
the wind and tide were high, against the Judgment
proceeding to sea. Considerable damage was suf-
eminent paid. This claim is for balance, the
parties ~ insisting that the government should
tSs service % - which led % to W the dSase damage. The
Court OF Claims ruled in favor Of the government
and the case Is appealed the claimants urging that
the government was In effect the owners of the
sci and could command her to go where certain
destruction would follow, and that under such a
state Of the it ought to be held liable for the
damage resulting. the government submit that
while the exigency OF the service led to the injury
sustained by the vessel still the peril falls within
the class to be borne by the owner, and that the
extgency Of the service Is too remote to be
considered by the Court as determining the class of
pers to which the one in question is to be assigned
Q. ID. Hill for the government; Carlisle McPher-
son and N. +. Chipman 1or claimants.
No. 373. Solomon ct al. VS.. Graham, Auditor OF
Louisiana-Error to the Supreme Court Of Loui.
siana-The plaintirs in error are the owners OF an
assigned claim OF Nixon, late Public Printer OF
Louisiana, which the Legislature OF 1871 directed
to be paid The Auditor refused to pay, on the
ground that the new constitution prohibited the
increase OF the State debt beyond $25 0oO and it
exceeded mat sum when the act was passed d.
recting this amount $3.50, ,331 46) to be paid to
Nixon. A mandamus was applied for, and the
Courts OF the State refused 1t. This writ OF error
Is taken to review that Judgment, and motion
Is made to dismiss the writ on the ground
case. the only question involved in the case as
decided 1t Is said, was the validity or an act Of the
State Legislature, and the highest Courts OF the
state decided against 1t but no point was raised
on the record showing that the constitution OF the
United States, or a law or treaty thereof was
drawn in question. and the federal court therefore
has no jurisdiction to review the judgment.
For the plaintif in error and in opposition
to & the motion M .,h to dismiss III. 1t is argued that
there was q contract between Nixon and the
State as public printer, and that by the inter-
probation OF the new constitution below 1t is
made to deprive Nixon Of his pay under his con-
tract. The new constitution is therefore claimed
to be In violation Of that clause Of the federal con-
stitution prohibiting State from making any law
"impairing the obligation OF contracts I. J. Dur
ant for .he motion; John J. Key opposed.
No. 126 Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company
vs. Hill-Appeal from the Supreme Court of the
District OF Columbia.-This is an appeal from de-
cree establishing the right OF the appellee, under
contract with the canal company, to draw water
from the canal to run paper mill and
the bonus and rent payable by the contract. The
bonus and rent fixed by the decree were paid by
Hill and accepted by the company without objec-
ton for nearly three years alter the decree was
rendered, when this appeal was filed-the company
so construed the contract between the parties as
In effect to create new contract, and that the
decree should be corrected set aside for this
error. w. s. Cox for appellant; W. d. Davoge Tor
appellee
ARMY INTELLIGENCE.