The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1874-11-10

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9.--The Home Insurance
Company VIZ. Morse and Another-Error to the
Supreme Court Of Wisconsln.-ln this case the
Home Insurance Company, OF New YORK, com
by which, among Other things, it agreed not to
remove any case commenced against 1t IN the
State Courts to the Federal Courts, but upon the
commencement of the present case 1t peverthe-
le IS moved for the transfer to the Federal Court
The court below regarded the statute and the
agreement as q ground Tor the denial OF the
motion. This court reverses the Judgment based
upon that theory, and hold that neither private
citizen nor corporate body may barter away sub
stantial rights, (and that the company was emit
tied to the removal, notwithstanding the State law
and the contract.
Mr.. Justice Hunt delivered the opinion.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered \ dissenting
opinion, in which Mr.. Justice Davis concurred,
holding that the State had powers to enact such
a law, placing foreign and local business corpo-
rations III the same position az to the State au-
thority, and to make all doing business in the
State amen able to the same tribunals.
Pollard vs. Bailey, assignee. On error to the
District Court for the Middle District OF Ala
bama-In his case the court below allowed .
recovery against stakeholder OF an lnsOlvent
bank, without reference to the nnestlon OF prop
er,v. The Judgment is here reversed, the court
holding that each stakeholder il liable only to
pay a sum which shall bear the same proportion
TO the whole Indebtedness that his stock bears to
the whole capital. The Chief Justice delivered
| the opinion.
In the case Of Sprool VIZ. the United States, the
Supreme Court to. day affirmed judgment OF
the Court of Claims, holding that the claimant,
| a Confederate citizen, gained no title to certain
cotton by a purchase from an agent of the Con-
ttderate States, because those States were with
| out corporate power to take, hold or convey u
valid title to any property whatever, and that the
claimant WAS chargeable with notice OF the trea-
sonable intent OF the sale by the Confederate
Government, to wit: to raise money Tor the pur-
chs of munitions OF
Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion. MIR.
Justice Field dissented, taking the view that the
pardon OF the claimant reinstated him IN all ms
rights and gave him ASSURANCE that he should
stand IN the corrts Of his county in as good con-
ditlon as any Of his felow-citizens who had
never sinned against the authority OF the Gov
ernment.
other from the Circuit Court for the Eastern
District OF Pennsylvania.
In this case, which was to enforce bottomry
lien. the Court finds that there il no evidence o
actual payment rs claimed by the owners, ahe
that the ship was clearly not discharged from the
lien unless there was actual payment OF the
bond or unless the hbelants agreed to pay i
aud took the freiGhts, the general average ant
1.-THE insurance exclusively for their reimburse
ment. Decree affirmed. MIR. Justice Strong DC
iivercd the opinion.
BoeIv vs.. Griswold, error to the Supreme Cour
Of Montana
, The Chief Justice delivered the opinion in Thu
case, a1hrmlnS te JuuSmeut Delo" hoiuiub VII
in an action for the recovery of personal propert
if the court is satisfied there can be no delivery
\ the property, the judgment may be absolutely 70
the paymen, of value, and that such a judgmen
is equivalcn. to the tindinS that there can be n
delivery.
e Lyon vs. Pollard. From the Supreme Court Q
the District of Columbia.-This was a case ii
e volving Mrs. Pollards rights as Superintendent
1 of the st. Cloud Hotel, in Washington, and tn
: judgment was in her favor. 1t is here reversed
II the court finding that there was error in th
ruling below in not granting the prayer OF til
defendent there, Poilard-that if former motto
| Of discontinuance had been withdrawn, the sec
n ond notice was renewal OF it. Mr.. justice Mi
+ Ter delivered the opinion.
If Mr.. Justice Field IN dissenting from the opiI
II ion of the court in the >pratt cotton case hold
IS that the Confederate Government could acquIr
II and transmit title to property, and cites q
1t authority two cases in which the United State
d filed bills in the High Court OF Chancery In En-
land, claiming property OF the Confederate Go
eminent by right OF capture.