The New York herald., 1873-12-12
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
XAsHINaToN. Dec. III. lS1a.

WASHINGTON, Dec. ii, 1878.
No. 1874. John v. Watersson ct al. Error to the
Circuit Court for the district OF Kansas.The ques-
ton In this cause is whether the statute OF the
Territory OF Kansas, made in 1854, providing that
action on any note, Judgment contract, &C.. made
outside the limits Of the Territory shall be com.
menced within two years after cause OF action
accrues, bars action on Judgment Obtained in
Ohio against the defendant tour years before the
enactment OF the statute. The Court below so
held. and the Judgment was for the defendant. 1t
is here urged that such Il statute extingushed the
remedy instead OF limiting 1t, and that It is. there
fore, void. Thomas Ewing Tor PLAINTIFF in error;
John b. Sanborn Tor defendant
No. 139. HOmbuckle and Marshall We. Toombs.-
Error to the Supreme Court OF MOntana.-This was
proceeding brought by Toombs to restrain the
plaintiffs in error from dlverting the waters OF the
Greek Magpie from his farm to their mining opera
tions, and to recover damages for their having
done so. The jury found that the diversion had
been made, and their verdict gave nominal dam
pges, the object Of the suit being to prevent iur-
thcr interference with the water course. Upon
this verdict injunction issued forever restraining
the plaintns IN error and their agents, 1c.,
cause was tried below, partly as an action
al law, and partly as proceeding chancery under
questions OF fact as q case at common law and the
Judgment and decree were pronounced by the
Judge mere conclusions OF law on the facts
found, and not as the result OF his own Judgment
upon evidence submitted TO him and contained In
the record. 1t Is here claimed that this was
because the proceeding entirely ignored the dis
tinctlOn between the chancery and common law
jurisdiction conferred by Congress upon the Ter
ritorial courts by the organic act. Robert Leech
for plaintiffs in error; Blair Lick for de.
fcndant
No. 14o. Steamship Favorta VS.. the Union Ferry
Company OF BrooKlyn-Appeal from the Circuit
Court for the Southern District OF New York.-The
libel was filed by the Terry company. owners OF the
ferryboat Mannassett, to recover damages
\
Ravorta, y ship just built for the Pacific Mail
steamship Company, OF Liverpool. She was then
on ner trial trip down the bav and soon after pass
ing the Fulton ferry slip the ManGassett came out
from the Brooklyn side, and in crossing the course
ol the Favorita the collision occurred. This was in
the afternoon OF April H. 1855. The District Court
held both vessels AT fault, and apportioned
the damages, but the Circuit Court, finding
the Favorita alone liable, reversed the decree, and
the decision is here for review the appellant main
tanning that the ierryboat Jailed 10 comply with
the rules OF navigation IN not keeping proper
lookout and in changing her course when the
danger was imminent. A principal question TO he
decided is the point made against the Favorita by
the District Judge-that she was too far rom The
middle OF the river under the statute Of New York
1S4s, and the decision OF this question will in
volve decision OF what ls TO be regarded the
middle OF che river in such cases. II. d. Benedict
Tor appellant; Il. d. Sliman for appellee
No. 13s. Hicks vs. Kelsey.-Appeal from the Cir-
cuit Court for the Northern District OF Illinois,
This was an action against Kelsey Tor an alleged
infringement OF plaintiffs patent for an improved
truck and wagon reach. Tne defence was that the
reach did not present any patentable subject under
the statute, ana that there had been no infringe
ment, the Court rcmarking that it was
very close case on the patentabilIty o the invcn-
ton claimed, undoubtedly, TO be Appealed, and that
in that the complainant, having the afilrina-
tive, should lstng the appeal dismissed the bill
that the litigation might take that course The
main question here, therefore, Is whether the in
vention Is patcntablc.
;. A. Goodwin, Tor appellant, appellee not sp-
pcaring.