The New York herald., 1874-12-22
COURT OF APPEALS.

7,
gueu by Bradley Minslow, OF counsel for appellant,
and by ]. W. Paige for respondent.
ct al. respondents, VS.. John b. Hasklns ct al.
appellants-Argued BY Abel crook or counsel Tor
n9 By fa as &
respondent. vs. George A. Hurlburt ct AL, appel
Iants.-Argued Dy NJ NJ. Waters ior appellants;
submitted by respondents.
No. 15s. Alexander Kincaid. respondent, vs. Will
liam II. Dwiucke, appeant:-Argued by I. L:
Stetson, Of counsel Tor appellant, and submitted
No. l5s. d. Freesman Poole ct al, appellants, vs..
W No. ' ISL. kosaIle .. Barry. respondent, vs.. The
Equitable Lie Assurance Society, tai, appel
n saSn or a c9unse oT
Court adjourned to Tuesday, December o.
CALENDAR.
the day calendar for Tuesday. December 90 is
as folows-Nos. l4S. l53 2s3, 12l 16o 1854, 1885, 1885,
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
WASHINGTON, Dec 81. 1874
The Supreme Court rendered the following de.
cislons to-day
No. IS. Atchtnson ct al VS.. Peterson ct al
Error to the Supreme Court OF Montana Terrl-
tory.-Thls was proceeding to obtain an Injunc-
ton to protect the property OF the :plantlns ln
stream whose waters the defendants had
appropriated Tor mining purposes. The complaint
was that the defendants, as subsequent apprOprla-
tors, had by the uses made OF the water above
the LOCALITY OF the plaintiffs deteriorated Its quality
Court alter a ful consideration OF the question OF
title by priority In such cases In mining countries
and deciding mat the mrs, nad ,n
In this case there was no such injury TO the water
rendered 1t unit Tor mining purposes, noweverit
might be or drln KING ana iOr domestic uses. Judg
ment below, refusing an Injunction, and leaving
the parties to an action az law or such damages
as they may have sustained was afhrmed. Mr.
Justice Field delivered the opinion.
No. 555 United States vs. Shrewsbury-Appeai
contract lor the furnishing OF army stores, and
the Court hold that under the contract the re.
0 ns the sS1s and aa e
claimant, ne having at the time gwen notice only
that he should ask a readiustment and ,ull pay
instead OF the sum allowed by the Board, without
having objected to the form or substance OF the
report. AS to an objection now made that inc
Board mace investigation 1t Is SAID that at the
late day wAen 1t was made, when the witnesses
scattered and The c. ndtion OF things altered.
| TO be based upon an investigation. Reversed MIR.
Justice Swayne delivered the opinion
No. 40. sweeney ct al. vs.. Lorume-Error to the
! Court hold that in suit on replevln bond given
| to the Snerin, where the question whether the
whose benefit the bond was gwen, depends upon
the code OF practice OF the Territory, this Court
will not reverse the decision OF the supreme Court
OF the Territory on tne construction OF tnat code ;
! also that such suit the defendants cannot
in tne replevn SUIT the alternative for the
return oI the property on It's value. even II that
were an error Tor winch that juagment might De
replevln suit the surety is liable. as the condition
Of the bond to return, ana TINS without execution
| or other demand Tor It's return; the Judgment es-
taDlishes tne liability, nor Is the laoilty 10 be
measured in the acton by the value ofthe interest
lne DEBTOR DEB pr whose debt it was seized by
the Sheriff. The value OF toe property at the time
1t was replevned, limited Dv the DEBT still due
the Judgment, and the penalty OF tue repIevin
bond are the elements OF ascertalning the dam
ages in the suit on mat bond; also, that where 1t
appears Ior the first time on the argument OF q
cause tnat the Judgment appealed from IS not on
the records. this Court, OF It's own motion, may
tnlo otnfIH in
! to produce certified copy OF 1t. Affirmed. Mr.
Justice Miller delivered the opinion.
Appeal from the circuit Court Tor the Eastern Dis
irlct OF Micnigan.-MotlOn TO increase tue super
sedeas bond and require addltlOnal securities
Denied; the Court holding that ali the facts were
proper for the consideration OF the Justice when
he determined upon the amount OF the security
! necessary TO indemnify the appellee against loss
by the appeal and tnaJ the action OF the Justice III
approving the bond IS conclusive. The Chief JUS.
tice delivered the opinion.
No. So. County OF Chambers vs. Clews ct al
Error to the District Court for the District OF
A!a0ama-Tnis was an action on county bonds
issued in aid OF the Euiaua, Opelka, oxford and
Gunterville Railroad, anu the defence was that
the bonds were issued without authority OF law
holacrs without notice. The opinion rea nlrms the
doctrine that where the persons appointed BY law
to certify rnst the preliminary requisites have
been complied with, do so certiiy their ce tlficate
Is conclusive in favor O the holder. VINO on the
the bonds, without notice Of any defect or Illegal
ity. Affirmed. Mr. Justice Hunt delivered the
No. 10. County OF Lee VS.. Clews-From the same
Court.-Dlsposed OF by opinion IN No. 80 above.
No. s5. Michaels ct al. vs.. Post assgnee-Ap-
! peal rom the circuit Court for the Northern Dis
! trict OF New lork.-rhis was the aflrmance Of a
decree in case In bankruptcy. the Court sustain
j ing the ruing below tnat 1t was not necessary 10
the Jurisdiction OF the District Court tnat the Pc
| titionLng creditor In the proceeding should be a
creditor Of the bankrupts, ana Gif anrmng the De,
The spi Chief Justice announced that the Court
Uadp " untiI