The New York herald., 1874-12-15
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

dered the following decisions:-
No. $50. Cannon VS.. The City OF New Orleans
Error to the Supreme Court OF Louisana.-ln this
case the Court holds that the ordinance OF the city
OF New Orleans lupOslng levee dues on vessels
which stop at the wharves 0l the city or moor in
the waters OF the Mississippi River within the
city limits, Is not compensation i0r the use OF
the wharves, but tax upon such vessels for
the privilege Of landing or mooring and
measured By the tonnage OF vessels, II falls directly
VII hin that clause OF the constitution prohibit
e cocsds Ss 'ns
pality, building wharves and piers for the use OF
commerce. may properly require some compensa-
tion rom vessels using them; but IT Is said that
in so doing care should be taken not to 20 beyond
the sphere Of State authority as limited by the
federal constitution. Reversed. Mr.. Justice Mil
No. 334. The United states vs.. Vlllalonga-Ap-
peal from the Court OF Claims.-ln this case 1t IS
held tnat q factor who received cotton and made
advances upon 1t was not thereby constituted the
owner OF the property In such sense as to enable
under the Captured and Abandoned Property act,
for 1t Is said, II ne were SO regarded, through him
as Their agent disloyal owners might recover sucn
ing the right OF action, which specially provided
against recovery by any one who had given aid
and comfort to the rebellion. Reversed. MI.
Justice Strong delivered the opinion.
No. 6L Grand Tower Mining, Manufacturing and
oSr Eompany TVS VS. Ips
llnois.-This was an action by the defendants
here TO recover for breach OF contract for the
whether the plaintiffs had provided barges as
alleged for the transportation, which was not re-
liver coal accordnS to Contract Tnls Conr.
with the verdict found Tor the plaintiffs on this
issue, but reverses the Judgment because OF errors
in the admission OF evidence, which probably
affected the amount OF the verdict In the case.
Opinion by Mr.. Justice Bradley.
No. n. Florida Railroad Company vs.. Smith and
Latrobe-ErrOr to the Circuit Court Tor the
Northern District OF Fiorlda-The Court reversed
the Judgment in this action, which Was brought
to recover compensation; tor the pp ldlng OF rail-
road bridge, holding that the deicSce set up e.
the trial, that the work was defective anu the
structure not according to contract, was sustained
use OF bridge by the railroad company In sucn
case without specific objection does not waive the
right TO make sucn objection q defence where the
company constantly urged and declared that the
structure was not such as was called for by the
contract Mr.. Justice Field delivered the opinion
Lea-ErrOr to The Circuit Court for the Northern
District OF Illinois was an action on policy
OF insurance which, con ntained provision that the
property insured must be In the absolute right of
the party taking the policy, and the defence v as
that the title in the case was merely conditional
equitable one, and not absolute; and as the lact
was not stateu IN the application there was such
q concealment as would vitlate the policy; also
tnat the conveyance OF one OF the houses insured,
release the company. rms Court afnrms the
judgment below, that the insured had an In
surable interest, although not the absolute
title, and that the reinstatement OF his interest
did not vtlate the policy and that the objection as
to the conveyance could not be noticed here. be-
cause 1t was not specific as to the house conveyed,
but general, and went TO the avoidance or the
whole policy. The Chief Justice aellvered the
No. SO. Lewis vs.. Cocks-Appeal from the Circuit
Court for the District OF L0uisiana-In this case
the Court hold tnat merely legal title is sought
to be enforced. and although the objection was
now here taken in the case, 1t is nevertheless
noticed BY the Court and the cause remaDded,
with directions to dismiss the bill as not sustain
able IN equity. Mr.. Justice Swayne delivered the
opinion.
ard ct al.-Appeal from the Circuit Court for the
Southern District Of New York-Thls was an ac-
tion to recover for an infringement OF the patent
for rubber heads to lead pencils. The Court be-
low held that the invention was not patentable,
and the bill was dismissed. The decree is here al.
nrmed. the Court remarking that an idea is not
patentable, but q new device, II made practically
useful, is that the idea Ol the patience In this
case was good one, but mis- device for putting It
into effect, though useful, was not new, and
hence he took nothing by his patent. The Chief
Justice delivered the opinion.
No. 80. watson vs. BOndurOnt-Error to the Cir.
cult Courr for the District OF Louisiana.-In this
case the Court holds that the law OF Louisiana re.
quires actual seizure OF property to be sold by the
sheriff under ner facias, and that where the selz-
ure was by notice thereof posted In the court
house II was insufficient and no title passed to
the pure ,aser at the sale aud tuis notwithstapd-
ing the fact that the defendant in the proceeding
was at the court house ana saw the notice. Re.
versed. Mr.. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion.
No. 95. Green ct al Vs. Green ct a-Appeal from
the Supreme Court OF the District OF Columbia
This was the anlrmance OF decree below, sus-
LalUIuR uccu VI tTusI mdue IOT tQe DeDent or the
appeees, the wife and children OF the grantor.
Mr.. Justice Hunt delivered the opinion.
No. ls6. Lecombe vs. The Milwaukee and st.
Paul Railway-Error to the Circuit Court for the
District OF Minnesota.-Ths was an action of eject.
ment 10 recover possession OF town lot In MIN.
neap0lis, occupied by the defendant company as
part OF its road bed This Court agrees with the
judgment below, that the railroad company ke-
came lawfully possessed or the land under the
laws OF the State, as decided by the State courts,
Afflrmed. Mr. Justice Davis delivered the OPINION
The Chief Justice announced the following in re.
lation to the rules OF Court
Rule 20 Is amended by the addition OF the fol.
loving as o fourth paragraph
No brief or argument will be received either
through the clerk or otherwise, after case la 3
been argued or submitted, except upon leave
granted In open court after notice TO the opposing
counsel.
Ordered that from and after January /, 1875. the
motion day shall be Monday OF each week, in lieu
or Friday and motions not required by the rules
OF the Court to be put on the docket shall be en-
titled to preference on Monday, Immediately alter
the reading OF opinions shall close. II such motions
shall be made before the Court shall have tered
upon the hearing OF cause upon the docket.