The New York herald., 1873-11-05
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Occtsi0ns.

0ccA1kOnBs
No. 19. Lamb VS.. Davenport-Appeal from the
Circuit Court for Oregon-In this case 1t was held
that contracts made by actual settlers on the
and concerning the title to be acquired in future
from the United States are valid as between the
parties to the contract, though there be at the
acquired and though the government is under no
obligation to either OF the parties in regard to the
law. The provision OF the Oregon donation act OF
1850 which forbds the future sale OF the settlers
interest until patent shall issue, SO far from In
validating such contracts made before its passage,
raises a strong implication In favor OF their valid
ity. Whether the husband or wife who takes as
survivor the share OF the deceased under the Do
nation act takes purchaser by inheritance, 1t Is
held that the contracts OF the husband concerning
the equitable interest OF the part allotted TO him,
made before the Donation act WAS passed, are
binding on the title which comes to his children
BY reason Of patent issued after the death OF
Justice Miller delivered the opinion.
No. II. Horn vs. Lockhart-Appeal from the Cir
cult Court for Alabama.-ln this case the Court
anirms the decree of the Court below, which held
that the statute OF limitations OF the State had
barred the right OF the complanants to contest the
validity OF the will Of Lockhar deceased and that
they were also estopped from contesting II by ac-
cepting without objection or protest, dividends of
the property founded upon the directions OF the
win. Mr.. Justice Field delivered the opinion.
Dissenting Justices, Swayne, Davis and Strong.
"
Circuit Court for Delaware.-This was an aflrmance
OF a Judgment in ejectment, by which the title OF
WhOrtenDy to certain property In Delaware was
confirmed Mr.. Justice Swayne delivered the opn-
ion.
No. 80. westray ct al. vs. United states.-Error
to the Circuit Court for the Southern district of
New York.-In this case the Court afirm judg-
ment in favor OF the United States, sustaining the
imposition OF certain duties upon the plaintiffs,
importers OF rice holding that the decision OF the
Collector that the article was cleaned rice, not
having been appealed frOmtwas nnal, and that no
notice OF such decision by the oficer to the i'm
porter was necessary. Mr.. Justice Strong delivered
the opinion.
No. 4s. Cutner VS.. United states.-Appeal from
the Court or Claims.-ln this case the Court afirm
o Judgment OF the Court of Claims IN favor Of the
government, in respect OF the proceeds OF certain
cotton claimed by Cutner. 1t appeared that he
informed the authorities of his possession OF the
cotton, and surrendered 1t to be shipped to New
cotton was 9 he Executed p
sale to firm in New York OF his interest in the
cotton. The Court say that the sale to the New
Schiller Co., had license to trade in savannah,
which the case shows they did not prove. MIR.
Justice Bradley delivered the opinion.
No. SO. Conway N. Stannard ct al.-Certincate
Of Division from the Circuit Court for the District
Of vermont-This action was to recover damages
Tor sezng certain property OF the plaintiff for hav-
ing been before that time engaged in transporting
smuggled goods. The defence was the TACT or the
use OF the property lhorses, seighs, &c) IN smug-
Cling. The plaintiH demurred, and the question
was whether the wrong use OF the property prior
to plaintiffs ownership subjected it to forfeiture,
Court say that the demurrer should have been
overrued, and that the question must be answered
in the Affirmative. Mr.. Justice Davis delivered the
opinion.
No. 81. Keyser N. Moses.-Appeal from the su-
preme Court OF the District OF Columba.-Decree
affirmed No opinion.