The New York herald., 1875-12-16
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
WASHINGTON, Dec. is, 1878.

Argument has becn heard In the Supreme Court OF
the United States in the following cascs:-
No. 44o Webster Upton, assgnee-Error TO the
Circuit Court for the Northern District OF IllnoisThis
another Of the actions brought by the assignee in
bankruptcy OF the Great Western insurance Company
to of Webster the amount remaining unpaid
stock OF the company held by him as assignee
OF one Hale The question was whether Webster
liable on the subscription the same II II had been
made by him The Court below SO instructed the Jury
and the here appeal from the verdict
dered in favor OF the assignee OF the company, the
plaintiff in error maintaining that there is no priority
established between the company and Webster there
express promise by him 10 pay the unpaid bal
ance, and no equity which 70 base an implied one
Hence there should have been recovery. Submit
ted the briefs. +. 4 A. Van Buren, for plaintiff in
error; l.. II. Boute for defendant.
No II. Osborn ct al VS. United States-Error to tho
Circuit Cour. for the District of KansasIn this case
tho property OF Brown connscated and subse-
queuty sold, the proceeds in part coming into the
hands of Osborn United States Marshal and Others
in their official capacity Brown, niserward being par
doned, allowed TO recover much OF the money
received the sale OF lands had not been cx-
pended for costs still remaining in the hands or the OIL
having it in possession. These officers brought the
writ Of error maintaining that Brown could not
after pardon the proceeds of any property which had
been confscated that he could certainly, when his
pardon specifically stated that II should ente him
recover any property or the proceeds Of property
which had been sold by authority Of court under the
confscaton laws The United States represented
by Brown, the real party interest who claims that
the officers Of the court have absorbed all the moneys
fees and that they should be compelled TO pay
the amounts decreed below. Cause submitted Cor
wine, English Corwine and Beard Armcs lor PLAIN
THIS IN
No. lS0 weton VS.. State OF Hissouri-Error TO the
Supreme Court of MissourL-Weton was indicted in
the Court pcddllng without license
law of the State providing that any person travelling
from place To place, dealing IN patent medicines
chandse &c, not the growth product or manufacture
of the State, except books, charts, maps and station
ery should be deemed pcdler and subject TO a Ii
cense. The argument here is that this law is IN
ct with the federal constitution, IN that IT is at
tempted regulation Of commerce between the States
discriminating against the products OF other States
The State insists that is within the province OF the
State TO tax any avocation it may choose without any
interierence whatever with. the commercial relations
between the States. Case submitted james s. Bots
ford tor paintin in error John A. Sockaday Attorney
General OF Missouri and A. H. Buckncr for the state
No So NebbeIt vs.. Northumberland from the
Circuit Court Tor Wisconsin-The question in this
is whether certain conveyance made by Mcfarland
Nebbett OF real property IN Louisiana was sale to
Ncbbett or conveyance IN trust for The settlement OF
McGarands affairs, the latter at the time being absent
IN Europe Upon the evidence in the case the Court
below found in favor of Mcfarland that it not
sale to Nebbett and rcconveyance WAS ordered 1t Is
here contended that the Court below should have made
the paying of certain bond held by the appellant
against Mcfarland. and which claimed to be the
purchase money OF the property, condition precedent
10 the ieconvcyance Of the property Case submitted
W. o. Gordon Tor appellant; Campbell, Hudson and
Flom Tor appellee.
No. ST. Moore VS.. The United States-Appeal from
the Court OF Claims-This was suit under the Cap
tured and Abandoned Property acts TO the
proceeds of twenty and twothrds bales OF cotton
seized in "A warehouse ut ST. Josephs La In Deccm-
Der, 1868 A bill OF sac-or what purportod to be
sucho the cotton after seizure by Moore offered
show that Moore was not entitled TO recover. 1t
objected that the signature not proven. A
paper concssedly signed by Moore, then offered
and the Court was asked to compare the two papers,
and from the COMPARISON determine whether Il was
bill Of sale, dNestlng Moore OF title. Objection
made To this mode OF proving the signature but the
Court proceeded the comparison, and, by finding
the signature genuine held Moore be without title
and the decision was against him. II IS here con
tended that the Court erred IN proving the document
shown because It could not be proved by comparison
except by experts, and IL was not shown that
judges OF the court any Of them were experts; that
deprived the claimant OF the right to test the know-
edge accuracy Of the witnesses claiming DO
pcrts by ross-examination f. H. Smith for govern
ment; Messrs Barley 4 Casey for claimant.
No. 81 Woodruff ct al VS.. Haugh u aL-Error to the
Circuit Court Tor the Northern District OF 1nois-rhe
plaintiff in guaranteed the performance Of
tract made by Allen with the defendants in error,
BY which the latter agreed furnish for stated sum
all the wrought IRON necessary the construction ot
jail building which Allen had contracted 70 build in
Rockford Ill Amer tue defendants here had delivered
considerable portion Of the iron Allen refused 10 allow
II be used, alleging that II not In accordance
with the contract, and they were compelled to desst
and this SUIT brought 10 recover damages The
suit OF the suit was a recovery as upon qu0ntanl
meruu, tor S., ,000 IL is here urged that the Court
erred in the whole theory and scope OF tho charge
the Jury permitting the sureiies in
this manner when, claimed, the evidence showed
that the defendants here had not performed
perform the whole contract and ought not
TO have been recovery Tor the whole amount when
10 have been paid IN instamens, all oi which
were not due when the suit was brought Seeper K
White, for plaintiffs IN error " Jcwctt for defend
ants.
No 80 Hall and Pope VS.. wease.-Error 10 the Cir.
cut Court the Northern District llinois-This
suit by the defendant in error against the PLAIN
tins recover certain bills Of exchange OF when
they we're the acccptors. The defence that tho
attendants below entitled To or amount
equal 10 the sum claimed. To this IL replied that
the draft claimed Set OF vas void Tor failure Of
consideration known TO the defendants when accepted
by them ana that it was wrongGily obtained. Under
inc instructions OF the Court verdict the facts
Was for the plaintiff below, and IT IS here contendcd
that the Court failed to properly put the facts before
tho jury and that the Judgment should be reversed H.
A. storrs for plaintiff IN error W. T. Clarke for
defendant
80 s.. Now Lamp Chimney Company VS. Ansonia
Brass and Copper Company.-ErrOr 10 the New York
Court OF Arpcas-This was an action upon certain
prOnissory notes drawn by tue planth IN error and
held by the defendant The defence that the Lamp
Chimney Company was declared bankrupt aud that
The defendant company proved It's claims and received
dividends from The assets and thereby waIved all right
for an npad balance Oh the notes The District Court
held that tie bankruptcy proceedings we're without
jurisdiction, aUa that tie lets OF The defendant here
dd operate 40 oaiyer The Court Of Appeals af
armed tho judgment, holding that The provision refer
ring TO the right oi action claimed IS 50 inconsistent
hostile 70 the entire balance Of tho Bankruptcy act
that stand IA harmony with the other clauses
This decision IS The error assigned hcre j. NJ, Martin
plaintiff in error, = T. Higcubolam for defendant
~ the United states supreme Court to-day,
lion OF SIR r. Phillips Ar Dudley ~ Du Bose, Oi Wash
ingtDn, Ca, was admitted 10 practise as an attorney
ana counsellor of this court.
on motion q Mr. 0ssian Ray, George a. Bingham, OF
Littlcon. y. H.. was admitted TO practise ss attor
ncy and counsellor OF this court.
on motion 81 Mr.. ". Y. lynde, Mr y W. Cotzhauscn,
Of Milwaukee WIS, was admitted practise at
tOrncy and counsellor OF this court
On motion Of Mr.. II. h. Paine, Mr.. Richard II. Chit
tenden. 81 Brooklyn, y ", vas admitted TO practise
attorney ani counsellor Of this court
No. 81. Henry H. Lewis ct all plaintiffs in error,
The Michigan Central Railroad Company cause
argued by Mr. f. A. Storrs Of counsel Tor plaintiff
error
No 80. Robert Dow, plantn in error vs. David
Humbert et AL-This cause was submitted printed
hu u Mariner and Mr. NJ IL