The New York herald., 1874-10-31
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

WASHINGTON, Oct. %, 1874.
No. 40. Pollard VS.. Baiiey-Error to the Circuit
Court for the Middle District or Alabama.-Tfe
facts agreed between the parties show that Bailey
assignee in bankruptcy OF Fowler b sommervlle,
produced bills of the Central Bank or Alabama
for $4,000, ana demanded their value OF Pollard
as the owner OF 200 shares In the bank, under
clause OF the charter making stockholders liable
n proportion their stock that the capital stock
of the bank subscribed by individuals was $500 900
issues Of the bank unpaid were 100000 and
that the affairs Of the bank were before
fort for the assignee; and It is here maintained that
the liability OF the stockholder Is only In the pro-
portion tnat his shares OF stock pear TO tne wISe
liability is liability to the creditors OF the oank
collectively, and to be ascertained 6y liquidation
or It's AFFAIRS after the deficiency In the assets OF
the bank have been ascertalned and the propor-
tionate share Of tho stocknoder has been deter
mined. Wnen TINS Judgment was rendered, as
appeared by the pleadlngs OF the case, q Court OF
Chancery had control OF the affairs OF the bank
j. A. Campbell and George Gold waite for plain
tin; J. A. Elmore for defendant st s.s
United States VS.. Boecken et al-Error to the
Circuit Court for the District Of Maryland-This Is
suit distiler's bond to recover certain taxes
alleged to be due the government. The sureties
only were served with process. The governments
proved that taxes were due on the business Of q
disliery located on the corner OF Hudson ana
Third streets, In the town OF Canton, Nd; but II
on there but about four squares distant. There.
upon the Court charged the jury that there could
Ss 20 tS that
the distiler had commenced business where re-
cited In the bond he could not move the business
without notice to the government and that II he,
after dling the bond, began business somewhere
else than where named therein 1t would be treated
really been h1xun there and afterwards removed.
This is the question at issue on the writ o. error
Attorney General and Solicitor General for the
government; Hinckley & Findiay for the sureries.
No. A. Boley vs.. Hall ct aL-Error to the Sup
RENE Court of Montana-This II an action of
replevin brought to recover possession OF seventy
one head OF cattle, or $500. their alleged value,
and the main question at issue is whether the
ritory is exempt from the debts and liabilities Of
the husband. question prior TO this, however,
In the present case s whether the property Was IN
fact the property OF the wife. Ashton wilson
for plaintis In error G. @. Squires for defendant
No. 49, Atchison ct al. VS.. Peterson ct al-Ap.
peal from the Supreme Court OF Montana.--The
plantlfrs claim to have acquired by prior ap.
preparation the exclusive right to use 80 much oil
the waters OF the Mile Creek as would AL certain
bitches constructed by them, and known a.
Helena and Yaw Yaw bitches. which extend from
the creek 10 Last Chance and Dry Eulches In the
the defendants have tapped the creek ana are
using the waters In such way as to obstruct its
tnat the pIantlns we're entltled to the waters
claimed, but tnat the defendants had not so IN
ured the now OF the creek as 10 entltle the plain
tlffs to q Judgment for damages 1t Is here claimed
that the sand and SUM set anOat by the defend
ants 50 detcriorated the water that it was COM
paratively useless for mining purposes. Robert
Lecch Tor appellants; G. G. Lymes for appellees.
No. A. Lyman vs. Poard-Error to the Supreme
Court OF the District OF Columbla.-Mrs. Pollard
sued to recover, under an agreement to that
effect, one-ith OF the net income OF tte st. Cloud
HOTEL located at the corner OF Ninth and streets.
In Washington, the rent Of the hotel to be re.
uar rdp ae a ~
ages for q breach OF the contract She recovered.
and the case IL here Tor review, on exceptions TO
the rulings oil the court on the trial, one OF which
was the exclusion OF evidence tending to snow
that while the motel was Jointly carried on by the
parties to the suit, the defendant here, VINO was
In active charge, was Of unsound mind. IL will be
remembered that she was afterward sent to an
insane asylum and shortly after the commence:
ment OF her action. Davldge a Cox Tor plaintiff
In error; Riddle 4 Bradley Tor defendant.