The New York herald., 1874-12-01
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Decisions.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 80, 1874

WASHINGTON, Nov. 80, 1874
The supreme Court rendered the following de.
csions to-day
No. Is. Titus vs United States-Error to the CIR.
cult Court tor the southern District OF Georgia.
This proceeding BY Titus to enlorce his rights
as an inlormer III respect OF certain lands IN BiDl
county, Georgia, winch had been conveyed Dy Will
to the Confederate states to aid the cause or the
rebellion. 1t is here neld that, as the land had
already become by conquest the property or the
United States and required no legal process to
make 1t sucn, no person could claim as an inlormer
in respect Of ana that the act or 1851 relating to
Iniormers was clearly Intended TO apply TO private,
not pubic property; 10 such property OF persons
as required under the laws OF war judicial sen.
tence Of condemnation TO divest the title OF Its
owner. not sucn property OF hostile government
as had already been captured by the army and
subjected 70 the complete and undispnted owner
ship OF the conquerlng power. Affirmed The
Cnief Justice delivered the opinion.
cult Court Tor the Eastern District OF Wisconsin,
This was the af1rmance OF decree charging the
tempting to pass through the pieces OF q bridge
near st. Paul, on the MISSISSIPPI when navigating
that river IN May. 1866 IN very rough weather as
her cargo OF wheat. insured by the company. was
lost tor the amount OF insurance taken, and 1t IS
sustained here. Mr.. Justice Davis delivered the
opinion.
No. "a Amber VS.. whipplo ct ai.-Appea from
the supreme Court oil the District oil Columbia
This was the reversal oil a decree below III pio-
ceedlng oased on partnership between the
parues, wnlcn was entered INTO Tor the purpose OF
perfecting an Invention or generating gas from
pctIoltuHl WHICH COUIu DC utlIlLeus iue utCIee
below found that by dissipated conduct aud ne
gect OF business Amber mad .ost his rights under
the contract OF copartnersmp, and was not en-.
titled TO snare in the success oi the invention.
rms court sees nothing III the case which deprives
hin of nus rights aud reverses the decree. Mr..
Justice Miller delivered the opluion.
NO. 62. Edwards ct al vs.. Elliot ct aL-Error TO
the Court OF Errors and Appeals OF New jersey
This IS the afirmance OF a judgment OF the New
Jersey Court, which decided that the Lien law OF
the State OF 1857, providing for the collection OF
demands against ships and creating lien TO
cnarge tnen, Is not in any sense repugnant 10 the
ieaera constitution or laws OF the uuited states
because u MAKES no provision ior trial py fury
and allows proceeding by name against the ves-
sci ior sucn COLLECTIONS. Mr. Justice Clifford de-
Hvered the opinion.
No. "a. Naunlvor ct al. VS.. Bryant-Error to the
Superior Court OF Massachusetts.--ln this case It
Is held that ~ Is TOO late alter cause IS heard
and decided IN the state Court TO ask Tor lts re-
moval TO the federal court; also that the case is
VIII hin The point decided IN the sewing machine
cases Is wall. that an action by plantin who
was citizen OF the state IN winch the SUIT was
brought AGAINST two defendants who we're citizens
oi other States aud third, who was citizen OF
the same STATE as the plaintiff is not removable to
the Circuit Court under the act OF 1851 upon the
CnleI Justice delivered the oplnlon.
NO. 6o. Douglass vs.. Dougass-Error 20 the
supreme court OF fhe District OF Coiumbia.-In
TINS case 1t was held that where a plainti1 re-
picvins property aud the property Is returned TO
the defendant on ms giving bond stlpulating to
SURRENDER II IN case the Judgment is against hin.
ani the case being decided In avor OF the plaintiff
snd ne sues out process and seizes the property.
the delivery 0. the property TO MIN by the Marshal
10 pursuance OF such process IL discharge o. the
deienaant's bond. although the plaintin claiming
TO IND sle properly N proper condition refuses 10