The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-03-21
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

WASHINGTON, March 20. 1874.
No. $50. Warren Van Brunt ct al-Error 70
the Supreme Court OF MINI esota--Ihls was a con-
test concerning the preemptlon title to certain
land in Minnesota, upon which Warren and Van
Brunt had both entered. Warren claimed that
Van BruDt entered only as his tenant and EN-
plOye and Van Brunr asserted that they had made
the entry Jointly Van Brunt applied for patent,
and, dying. his widow Obtained the patent under
the decision Of the General Land once in her
favor. The Supreme Court OF the sta e held that
the proper od1cers Of the government had, IN the
discretion which was repOsed in them, decided the
question OF the locality OF the entries made by TIE
parties. and had determined that the improve
ments made and required were those oil Van
Brunt, en itllng him to the patent. Their decision
was nnal. Thus holding the case was dismissed.
decision. and that there should have been parent
to tine TWO in common II the decision was not IN
favor OF warren. The defendants IN error urge
that there is no federal question in the case, and
tnat TINS Court, therefore, has no jurisdiction to
review the decision. wilkinson and Davis Ior
plaintiffs IN error, Carlisle and Mcpherson Tor
defendant
No. 229. Nash ct al VS.. Williams, eXecutrix--
Error to the Circuit Court Tor the Western District
OF TeXas.-Thls was an action OF trespass Tor the
recovery OF league of land on the Colorado River
brought by the defendant IN error as executrix of
Il. W. Williams, deceased, whose claim was upon
an administrators deed made in pursuance OF an
order OF the Probate Court of the proper county.
The defence OF the paintiffs N error that the
order and DEGREES Of the Probate Court were void
tor want OF Jurisdiction; but that II not so held,
then they were void because obtained by raud and
COLLISION, no such defendants beng established
against the estate oil the inlestate as those Tor
which the alleged sale was made. They set up title
under one Connect, who claimed 70 have pur-
chased the property from the heirs OF
the Interstate, and also to have be-
come owner by reason of q mar
on judgment recovered against the In testate. On
the trial question arose whether the nOtes OF the
tntestate held by COnnett, and upon which the
judgment was obtained, were given Tor valuable
consideration, IL appearing that were gwen IN
part iOr slaves purchased Uf Comes t by the ntes-
tate, which Connect had brought rom Missouri in
1861 alter the commencement Ol the war. On these
facts The Court held that, as the slaves were re.
moved from Missouri to Texas for the purpose OF
sale. after the existence OF the war, by Connett,
citizen OF Missouri, the sale mace Of them was an
unlaw III act on has part, contrary to his duty as
citizen o. the United States and OF Missouri, and
was IN Texas transaction VOID in law, and which
cannUt be enforced In the courts The Judgment
Was or the eXecutrlX, and 1t Is here Insisted,
among errors asSlg that this ruling OF the
Court was misrepresentation OF the facts and IN
q. piicabIe to the case that Connect, being IN
sympathy with the south removed mis- property
southward, as the military lines compelled BIN to
DO II he would remain within the reuel territory,
and tnat his enton was not simply, Or at ali, to
sell the slaves. On the contrary, that, On arriving
In Texas, he hired his slaves in most instances
until 1884, when they were sold to Williams
George +. Moore and John Hancock Tor plaintiffs in
error and JACKSON 4 Jackson ana James A.
Buchanan for defendant.