The New York herald., 1873-12-26
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 25, 1878.
No. 10. Grant VS.. Strong-Appeal from the Su-
preme Court OF the District OF Columbla.-Thls was
proceeding to enforce builders lien claimed by
Strong upon Ii houses partially erected for Grant.
The builder refused to go on with the work be-
cause, as alleged. he was not paid according to
contract. promissory note, which had been
given HIM to apply on the account, was not made
good at maturity, and he accordingly quit work and
sought to enforce his lien. The decree below was
in his favor and the Is appealed. Grant claim
ing that the lien cannot be enforced because the
plantlfr has refused to perform his contract, and
that as the note given him was negotiable re-
ceived as payment under agreement and he had
transferred IT, he could not claim not TO be paid.
Meloz and Miller Tor appellant; w. A. Cook Tor
appellee.
No IT.. United States eX rel. Lewes ct al. VS..
well-Error to Supreme Court OF the District
OF Coumbia.-Ths was proceeding in mandamus
to compel the Secretary OF the Treasury pay the
Choctaw nation OF Indians s5o0,o under the act
OF March, 1861, in pursuance Of the treaty with
them OF June, 1885, The REALTORS hold a draft drawn
on Secretary Chase Tor half OF the sum. which
not honored, and which was subsequently
presented Tor payment under an act OF
March, 1871, authorizing the payment by the
Secretary, directed by the act OF
1861 The Court below held that the Secretary
could not be directed In this manner TO perform
an act which was within his Official discretion, and
that this act was within such discretion because
the secretary was called upon to ascertain the
proper authorities OF the Chocaw nation before he
performed the Official act OF payment. 1t is here
maintained that the REALTORS are the lawful holders
OF the draft drawn by the delegates or the nation,
and that the holder is the proper party to receive
the money, and that the act OF Congress had
recognized the ''delegateSN as the authorized
agents Of the nation. These facts were conclusive
OF the right to tge process asked. r. NJ. Corwine
for the relator; no appearance ior the Secretary.
No. 17S. Cooper VS.. omohmoro-Error 10 the Cir
cult Court OF yirginia.-This was an action TO re-
cover for work done in Cincinnati for Cooper's es
tator, who lived in virginia, under contract
made after the Goth OF April, 1861. The defence
was that the contract claimed was void, being
made after the commencement OF the war between
ctIzens OF Virginia and Ohio; that Ii not void it
was executory, and was terminated by the war.
1t was also urged that II valid IL
was too indefinite TO be executed, and
recovered during the war The Court ruled that
the effect OF war upon such contracts did not in
validate them until alter the act OF Congress
declaring. 1t is here urged that war 40 dliiO
inmates all lawful intercourse between citizens OF
the belligerent countries, and that was It's
effect in this case although Congress had not
enacted. Messrs J. NJ. Carlisle, j. ID. Mcpherson
and James Lyons for paintif; w. w. Crump for
defendant.
No. III. Allen ct al. VS.. Ferruson-Error to
Circuit Court for Tennessee.-The question in this
case is whether the Court erred in sustaining a
demurrer a replication to the plea OF discharge
in bankruptcy, when the replication does not aver
that new promise relied on was made after the
defendant was decreed bankrupt, and not merely
pending his petition. The writ OF error claims
that ~ was error. A. H. Garland Tor plaintiffs;
Clark ana Williams opposed.