The New York herald., 1875-12-12
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

WAShsNtVr1 bcN ~ Aot0
Tho following cases were argued in the Supreme
Court yesterday
r. Kibbe VS.. DiIto Dunn-Error TO the Circuit
Court for the Northern District OF Illnois-This
involves title certain lands in Mercer county. Ili
nos and was brought by Kibbe recover possession.
The defendants proved title under mortgage from tbs
original owner, and tho judgment In their favcr.
Il is here claimed that tho deed given by the commits
soner Of sale upon foreclosure was not properly ad
mtted as evidence, because not acknowledged by tho
officer required by law the time In the State but be
FIRE the Circuit Court In open session. and that this
deed s rejected II should be for that reason, there
Is failure TO prove title and the Judgment must be re-
yersed W. G. Goudy for plaintiff in error T. g. Frost
for defendants 3 hN#y'F9 A#.I
Court for the Southern district Of Inois-Ths
iction by Cia1in Co., Of New York. against the plain
tfs certain promissory notes Of which Claf
hn Co. were assgnees and the plaintiffs here assign
under the statute Of the State Of Illinois, making
the latter liable where due diligence has been used
against the makers The defence that due diligence
not used against the makers because suit had
not been instituted against them The rejonder was
hat was unnecessary under the statute TO institute
aunt against the makers because the maturity tho
the makers residents Of the State and
because suit would have been unavaing by reason or
the insolvency of the makers The judgment being for
the assignces the Va here for review and
submitted on the printed briefs. W. O Goudy for
plaintiffs in error; Bently Quigg for defendants
"a. N. Kittrdge Race ct al-Error TO the Circuit
Court for the District OF Louisiana This s suit by
Mrs. Race with whom her husband IS joined, against
Mrs Kittridge who Is ner stepmother. The SUIT Is
against Mrs Kitridge administrative OF her husband
and tutrix of tho minor heirs, TO recover upon two
promissory made by the father tho plaintiff
and the husband Of the defendant when living. Tho
amount Of the notes for the plaintiffs share in her
mothers estate her father having In that way settled
with her her tutor The judgment for the PLAIN
tin below and IL is here contended that II for
large amount against Mrs Kittrdge In several ca
pactes and against minors who not parties and
have capacity 10 stand In Judgment and for other
reasons, and therefore Argued for plaintiff
in error by Durand Homo Submitted by defend
ant in error on the brief OF r 7. Merrick
No rs Woodford ct al Canastota National Bank
Error the Circuit Court for the Northern District
of New York.-Ths action promissory
note, TO which the defence was usury. The judgment
for the bank and IL Is here claimed first that the
court without Jurisdiction TO try the cause because
the action did not under any law Of the United
States vesting Jurisdiction in the COURT and second,
because the right 70 In tho federal court not
confined By the Currency act as held below. On the
merits II s averred that there because the
note was given In renewal, and was not original
arise, claimed by tho bank and that any
ton beyond the interest duo by way OF exchange is
usury w. James and David Wright for plaintiffs In
B. 8. Chapman for defendant
No. 76 Butterfeld va Usher-Appcal from the Su.
preme Court OF the District.-This IS appeal by
purchaser at trustees sale from an order OF Cour,
vacatng the sale to him and decreeIng q said
after the sale had been confirmed by the SPECIAL Term
The General Term made the order vacating the sale
by the Special Term vested the title in the purchaser
the case beyond the jurisdiction Of the
General Term TO vacate. Submitted on the printed
briefs T. Totten for appellants