National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1873-01-18
THE COURTS.



fnIDAt, January Il, ls7s,
On motion Of Mr.. ". W. Boycc, A. u. Magrath,
esq.,, Of Charleston, \. G., was admitted to pfsc
tice ~ an attorney and counselor Of this court
On motion Of Mr.. W. T. Otto, u, ". Estes, esq,
Of Memphis, Tennessee, was admitted TO prac-
tice as an attorney AMI counselor OF this court.
On motion Of Mr., "; z: otto, William L. scott,
practice as an attorney and counselor Of this
court.
J. sampson, esq, Of Scdalia, Missouri, was adj
mitted TO practice as an attorney and counselor
No. las, Of II. Benoni +. Gardner, appellant,
al. The motion for q commission To take testi-
mony, &c, In this cause was argued by Mr.. Z. Y.
Blake In support Of the same, aud by Mr.. Thomas
| Baldwin, IT,, In opposition thereto.
No. i2J. Tine Norwich and Worcester Railroad
Company, plaintiff In error vs.. Charles johnson.
The motion to dismiss this cause was submitted
on printed arguments by Mr.. George Pratt IN
favor Of the same, AMI by Mr. }. Halscy In oPPo-
sltiOn thereto.
No. i5i. The Dubuque and Sioux city Railroad
Company ct al, plaintiffs In error, vs.. Alfred W.
Richmond and John jackson. The motion to
dismiss this cause was submitted on printed ar
guments by Mr.. Plat smith IN support OF the
same, and by MI. Jauies +. Wilson In opposition
| thereto.
No. Is5. Henry y. Merrill ct A., appellants, VS..
| John W. Petty ct al. The motion To dismiss this
cause was submitted on printed arguments by
Mr.. Y. 4. Wilcox In support OF the same, and by
Mr.. Il. II. lluntley in opposition thereto.
No HN1. WAsl. uVtOu EOFl. nlliultU m error.
va James surpct. In error 10 the supreme Court
! Of the state OF Mississippi. On motion Of Mr..
George Taylor, ordered by the court that the
writ Of error In this cause be docketcd and dis
No. i02. George W. Brown, appellant, W. Ru-
| tns n GnIld' executor. Gc: and
No. 1903. George W. Brown, appellant, vs.. Jas.
cnntiSn ~ Nv VI" = 4 FISHER and Mr. i N nm
erts, OF counsel frr the appellees.
Adjourned until Monday at II O'Clock.
Supreme tphrt-t'enerni Term.
| All the Justices sat IL bdHc yesterday for the
| trial OF appeals
| Morgan, Rhinshlrt \ 60. Va. Hughes Appeal
| In case Involving the construction Of written
| paper. Judgment below confirmed.
! Lewis ESbtrg vs.. Hermann sGhmldt. This Il
] an appeal frIm the Circuit Court. TN the It'll Of
! April ISL, the plaintiff filed his declaration at
| law against the defendant on prOmlssOry note
| for $3.50, dated March ., 1859, and due four
months after date; also on an account for fIl SO,
AMI his aiildayit Of tho nOn-rosldency Of the de-
] PENDANT. On the same day an attachment was
issued and served on Z, \. Schmidt agent for
| the GerInania Fire Insurance Company OF New
| York city. On the 18th Of October, ISL, 4. L.
schmidt ned his answer "a Harnlshee. schmldts
second answer TO interrOEatorles was written, or
| purports to have been written, on the 9TH VI
March. 1879; hut Wis never sworn to or filed.
! Upon this state ui the record, anu upon written
notice duly served n" defendant, by his cOun-
sci, move the Count Ia discharge the attach
ment, which motion III" court denied, aud FROM
which action Of the lu dicu below this appeal Il
! The appellant, by Judge Moore, his counsel,
insisted that the court erred In refusing to dis
charge the attachm mt because, frst, at the date
Of the suing out OF the attachment there was
nothing In the hands OF the garnishee to be at
tachcd, aud that unliquidatel damages cannot be
subject OF attachment. Mr.. Webb argued the
case for the appellee and the court held the case
! under alylsenlcnt.
Bray1eld ct al, plaintiffs, vs.. Porter ct al, de-
PENDANTS. This case came up on appeal from
special term The hill was dismissed with costs
on the SDth day of April, 1874 for want Of Tepli-
cation to answer. On the same day the solicitor
for the defendants ordered the clerk TO issue an
attachment In lieu Of other execution: and an
attachment was issued accordingly, tested on
the ID day OF May, lST2 for tl23b5 for defend
rs costs. The plaintiffs on the 18th day OF
Hay gave notice OF motion for an order to va
cate and set aside said attachment, aud for re-
taxation OF costs, The motion was partly heard
In special term OH tho 2Tth OF the same month,
when Il was ordered that the attachment and all
proceedings hereunder be stayed until further
s ana ta' " aIoS oni, 90
taXinS the defendants' cost AT sIO is. and on ths
Isth day az Sentember lsT2 an order was male
in speclai term. DENYING and overruiing PLAINTIFF
motion 10 dissolve and yacate the Attachment
and Inv consent Of counsel confirming Inc ne p0Ti
nm IstSxation Of costs'
The plalntiits appeal from that part OF the lasl
mentioned nrIsr upnyInR and OyerTullnR their
moiinS 10 yscate a1I ri sside aid attaehinent
Mr. Thon,nson LlsI,ted that an attachment
NAV be issued upon Judgment, inyteaG OF ANY
other execution. under Inc MaTyland ACT OF ms.
, The Jecres iIIsmisSlng The 6iil with cnsts /,
,he tndSment of The eonrt AMI has the ssmS
effect al a Judgment at law,
II has been Inc uniform nractIce Of the couri
| IN isane attach,nents nnon de,raes ar inIgmsnfs
in saniIy In the same manner as AT law.
Mr. GRAY, for the piaintir, said that the All
| thnrlty relied an nv the defendanta' counsel fDI
issuinR the Attachment is Inc act of Assembly Of
NaryIsnI ITtS This haa no annIicatinn In III,
Srsss IN .auiiy. IL "a eanaSed Ia iSdgaeSts NJ
law siudgmTI,tn nnd GiiecTeen are not synonn
monsETa hbb0tt,s T. i. pr. ii4I
Tha NaryIanI i,nnrts ami me i,lrruIt ,,nurt ,i
|