The New York herald., 1874-11-17
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT


The Supreme Court to-day rendered the follow.
ing decisions
No. 40l. woodson ct al vs. Murdock ct al.--Ap-
peal from the circuit Court for the District OF Mis-
souri.-This was proceeding on the part Of
an alleged lien on the property OF the Pacific Raul
road Company. arising from certain advances
road. fhe company tested the right OF the
STATE 70 do this. alleging that the lien had been dis
charged BY compliance with an act Of the STATE
Legislature and adopted In l66S which had effect.
ed settlement Of all accounts between tho
state and the corpora tion,, the latter having paid
the act to be received IN fuil discharge OF ali in
deDtedness. The state objected that the new
sn sne rsroae comnan ans
indebted to the state The decree before was In
favor Of the company, awarding an Injunction TO
frmed, the Court holding that the constltu tional
provision was intended TO prohibit the discharge
DEBT and that Il was no obstacle in the
way OF compromise, or communication OF
aa q sscss s y ss wSsa MAS In "aas s
Mr.. Justice Strong delivered the opinion OF tue
ion. In which MIR. Justice Davis concurred, holding
that the thing prohotted BY the constitution was
specic lien whicn the State had on .he railroads
for the repayment Of the State bonds which had
been advanced TO the companieA
No. 8. Perris ct al. vs. Hgley ct al.-ErrUr to the
supreme Court OF Ut8h-ln this case action was
brought In the Probate Court OIL the Territory on
promissory nGle and judgment was recovered. The
Supreme Court OF the Territory reversed the judg-
ment holding that the Probate Court had no juris-
o. .s s"c4 Com, s hnnG na, tsat s M e
Territorial Legislature conIerring on the Probate
Court Jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases, both
with the organic act which limited and defined
the powers OF such courts and therefore void. Mr..
No. H. MAR Harry so e. a. vs. asron ct aAppea.
from the Circuit Court for Californla.-Ths was o
contest for a title TO certain lands under Mexi-
can grant, the complalnants claiming to be Gull
dren OF one Hardy. who died under an assumed
name some years ago In California, the owner OF
the tract. The case went against them below on
the ground tnat the defendants were innocent
bona tlde purchasers for value without notice.
This Court afirms that decree, but without con-
sidering the point on which the case turned be-
low having first determined tnas the appellants
are not the children Of the party VINO dled seized
OF che land. Mr.. Justice Hunt delivered the
opinion.
Appeals o. Maryland.-The points IN this case
have been several times stated. The State
company equal to the difference between gold and
Legal tenders AZ the dates on which certain pay
ments we're made. The company asserted tnat
there was no contract for the payment In gold
and 1t was 30 dec,ded below. This view Is affirmed
here, the Court saying that there s no just ground
for the implication tnat the company assumed to
pay ils dues TO the state in gold or In any other
money than In money generally, and the fact tnat
the company d.d pay the STATE interest IN steeins
construction OF the contract. Mr. Justice strong
delivered the opinion. ps,. cu,o.
to the Circuit Court for Maryland.-Thls was
q SUIT upon distlller's bond, which fixed the DIS
tillery OF the principal on the corner OF Hudson
street and EAST avenue, in the town of Canton,
Baltimore county. 1t was proved on the triaI tnat
the taxes were due on distlllery located on the
corner OF Hudson ana Third streets In the same
town and county. The Court instructed the jury
that II the principal carried on no business as
distiller at the corner OF Hudson street. and East
avenue they would find Tor the defendant and
his sureties aud the result was verdict for the
de,endants the Judgment entered on .nat verd,cs Sh
case 1t Is not suf1cient that the surety may sus-
tain no injury oy change In the contract; ne has
does not assent to any variation OF It. and vafia-
tion is made, II Is fatal. Mr.. Justice Swayne
Bradley dlssented. thinking the decision had q
tendency 10 cast every burden upon the govern
mens and to unduly relieve the sureties.
No. 70. Avery vs.. Hackey ct sL-Err0r 70 the
Circuit Court Tor Michigan.-This was an action to
recover the value OF large quantity OF sawlogs
ues rSs nS below ses ASIDE he Oi Of
sale, but sustained . contract IN pursuance OF
which the ne. defendants n were protected IN tneir
ing tnat the assignee fatls to show Dy sufficient
proof that the defendants intended 70 abandon
this contract and rely wholly on the Dill OF SALE
which was set aside. MI. Justice Davis delivered
the opinion.
No. 500. smytne lcollector) va Pish Cor.
OF New Y0rk-This was an action 10 recover GER
tam duties on an Importation OF SILK neckttes BY
the DEFENDANTS in error exacted by the Collector.
The decision Is tnat such articles are subject to Q
duty Of fifty per cent ad valorem, ana reverses the
\ judgment below. which was Tor the importers, on
the ground that SILK neCkties were WITHIN the acts
OF 1861 ana 1852, and were excluded by the act OF
1864. Mr.. Justice SwayDe delivered the opinion.
! No. 49, Leonard and Kip vs. ship Teutonia-Ap-
peat rom the Circuit 'Cours Tor the District OF
Louisana.-rnis was O case OF collision on the
! Mississippi between the steamer Brown and tn Q
! ship Teutonia the latter at the time seeking an
anchorage In a dense log. The decision below
/ was In iaSor Of the hbeIlants, charging the Teu-
tonla with negligence causing the accident The
decision here reverses the decree, with costs
! here, and diviucs the costs aud damages below.
| Mr.. Justice eli ford delivered the opinion.
No. 20. Gillette W. Ballard-Error to the Circuit
| Court for Onfana.-Th5 was an affirmance OF q
] Judgment Invo wing questions OF practice In the
I ferritory. The Chiei Justice delivered the
| opinion.
/ Error to Circuit Court Tor MISUNDERSTANDING
/ was case OF collision involving only questions ol
| TACT. Arirmed. The Chief Justice delivered tue
opinion.