The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-04-21
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
WASHINGTON. April 20. 1874.

WASHINGTON, April 20, 1874.
The case OF the State Of Texas against the First
National Bank Of Washington and others, from the
Supreme Court OF the District of Columbia brought
to recover certain bonds of the State which had
come into the possession OF the bank. was to-day
decided by the supreme Court In substance as
folows:-
note payable to bearer, though overdue and
dlsnonored passes by delivery the legal title to
the holder, subject 10 such equities as NAV be
asserted by reason of its dlshonor. ANY one dis
putting the title OF the holder such paper takes
the burden Of establishing By sufficient evidence
the facts necessary to deieat 1T. There Is no
competent evidence IN TINS cnancerv suit
that the bonds In controversy, which were issued
by the United States to the state OF Texas though
overdue when they passed from the Treasury or
that State, were issued by the State and received
BY the person to whom they were delivered for any
reasonable or other unlawful purposes. The
absence oil the Endorsement OF the Governor of the
State on the bonds does not raise presumption
of such unlawful purpose under the circumstances
OF this case. Tue cases OF Texas VS.. White and
Chiles, Wal, 7ls and Same vs. Hardenburgh, 10
Wan, Is, and same vs. Huntington, 10 Wall, 402,
are considered anu their true result ascertained
and applied to this case TIE decree was reversed,
With directions to dismiss the bill. Mr.. Justice
Miller delivered the opinion.
In the case Of Humaston W. the American Tele-
graph Company, from the Circuit Court Tor the
Southern District OF New York, to recover COM
pensatlon for the alleged breach OF contract Tor
the use OIL his inyentions ia telegraphng, the
Court afIlrms the judgment below, finding no error
ia the record. The conflict OF testimony, says the
was very great Another company claim TO have
proved That they were Of no value, or, If any, no
more than the amount already paid for them; and
IN this condition OF the evidence, IL Is thought
that, as the jury, with much difficulty settled the
issue submitted to them by finding a considerable
verdict for Humastun, he ought 10 be satisfied
with 1t. MIR. Justice DAVIS delivered the opinion
The Pacific Railroad vs. Maguire-Error to the
supreme Court oil Missouri.-fns was an action TO
recover tax collected oil the road and paid under
protest. The Company pleaded exemption fro,
taxation by the State under the 0fdinaice or 1852
allegtf0 that the ordinance OF 1861 which Imposed
o tax OF ten yer cent on the gross receipts of
the road n,yaired the obligation OF the contract
established Dy She acteptaLte OF the terms OF the
former act The State Court ailrmed the constitu-
tion8ty OF the tax, and the judgment Wa for the
State. This Court reyerses the Judgment holding
tnat the tax or 1865 was violation OF the faith or
the state pledged BY the act o. 1852 and void Mr..
Justice Hunt delivered the opinion. The Chief
Justice thought the eXactlon ~ the ordinanc, OF
1860 was not tax, bui a mere enforcement OF the
payment OF debt due the state on bonds issued
by the road as the ordinance required the tax 10
be applied IN the payment ol that debt; huu even
In that view OF the case 1t Inconsistent with
an act Of 1866, which, upon It's acce ptance by tine
company, became q contract binding uuon each
Justices Clinold and Miller dissented holding that
the act Oh 1852 aid not exempt the company from
the tax Imposed by the ordinance OF lSo5 Mr.
Justice Strong did not sit IN the case.
The Court made the usual order in reference TO
a second volume OF the reports Tor the term.