The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-01-23
COURT OF APPEALS.
ALBANY. Jan. %. 1875.

COURT OF APPEALS.
ALBANY. Jan. q. 1875.
The following proceedings took pace to-day
No. BAY. The Manufa turers' Matt ma Bank. 81
Troy, ct al, respOn, eis, Vs. MARY Z. Cox. admit
istratrix. &c, appellants; argued By r. A. Par
menter OF counsel or appellant, and oy Irving
No. ST. The Tradesman's National Bank, OF New
York, vs. Bernard McFeeiey, ct a., execptors &c,
appellants. Passed.
No. 90. John II. Boynton, ct al. RESPONDENTS. VS..
John Andrews, appellant Passed
No; 80: Joseph Eu'hsrord appellant vs. David
No. o. John L. Brown, appellant VS.. The Mayor.
No 90. Unarles r. Gorham, appellants VS.. The
Trustees OF the village OF CooperstOwn, respond
No. SO. LUCINDA Burrows, respondent, VS.. Tho
Erie Railway Company. appellant Passed
No. o. Una W. Alexander. respondent. vs..
No. 65. The Town OF Venice, appel ant vs.. Ly-
man Murdoch respondent !two cases.. Passed,
New York Lie Insurance and Trust Company and
otas 8 appeal;a a rasseai and .not,sr orr.
lants, vs. Thomas Nelson and others, respondents.
No. 10 George M, Tompkins, respondent, vs..
No II. me People, &C., respondents. Va. Eben-
ezsr Pennock, impIcaded &C.. appellant; Passed.
No. rs, Lewis Bush. respondent. vs.. The West.
No. 70. Welcome Y. Jones ana another. appel
lamts, ys. Lucrera +. Walker. respondent. Passed:
ten O'Clock A. N.
At q torn OF the Court Of Appeals held at the
Capitol, in the city OF Albany, on the FAD day Of
January, 1875, the following rule was adopted:-
Ordered tina, Rule No. q % smsnaed BY adding TIP
for ana no other shall Be msde
Ana an order shall be entered accordingly,
which shall be absolute, unless upon application
made and good cause SHOWN. Upon notice to the
IN session, and not on the arss notion day Of the
next meeting, the Court saali revoke said order
and restore said appeal
Calendar for Monday, January 25.-Nos. 70, IS.
"a, IS. SO. IS, 80. 90, 81. o. % and o.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
WASHINGTON. Jan. q, 1875.
No. 145 Byrne Va. Burgess-Error to the Cir.
cult Court for the Eastern District OF Pennsylva-
nia.-Tnis is another case involving the question
OF the duty OF the assessor to estimate the pro.
ducing capacity~ol the distillery. In the present
case the producing capacity was estimated ct
l,eo2K gallons orwhskey from Ats bushels OF corn,
or three and q half gallons from each busheL The
sne it s s p IN
above eighty per cent OF the estimated OPACITY or
the dlstiilery, but ne amount OF mash 70 be &C
counted for, represented at fOrty-Hve gallons to
each bushe OF gram 49, u bushels and this ut
the estimated producing capacity Of the distlery
OF three and q hall gallons to each Dushel, made
47,57l gallons as the amount actually produced.
This was the amount Tor which the tax was OK.
ID
have been on the amount returned. The judgment
asser led that there vas 40 evidence on the trial
ally produced. 1t is also said there was no appeal
to the Commissioner, as provided by law. The de-
cision will probably rest on that IN former case
decided Tor the government. @. h. Hill Tor the
government.
No. 14s National Bank Of Commerce Of Boston
VS.. Merchants National Bank OF Memphls-Errof
to the Circuit Court for Massachusetts &C
ton was brought by the Merchants National Bank
against the plaintiff IN error for alleged negli.
gence in surrendering three railroad receipts Of
bills OF ladng attached to three drafts--tw0 at
thirty days and one at sight-wnich were sent to
them for collection by the Metropolitan National
Bank OF New York. and which railroad receipts or
bills of ladlng the plaintiff in error surrendered to
the drawers named in the drafts upon their ac-
ceptance OF them. The drafts were discounted by
the de endant In error at Memphis before accept.
ance, and at the time of discount the railroad re-
ceipts were attached to the drafts, and delivered
the New YORK bank Tor collection. Tne drafts
were drawn against certain cotton named In the
ma ion that the drafts had ever been negotiated
BY the drawers and had no Instructions
ance or to hold them until the payment Of the
drafts. The plalHrlG in error mad received
through the New York bank money drafts on the
anne parties accompanied by such receipts which
they had always surrendered on acceptance ex-
cept IN one instance, when they had special in.
were paid. The trial resulted IN a verdict for the
plalntin below, the Court REFUSING to instruct the
Jury tnat 1t was the duty OF the de endants to sur
render the bills OF ladiua upon acceptance OF tho
dra ts aud that they were not bound 10 mold them
for paymont. This refusal Is assigned as error,
ana IL Is insisted that In the ABSENCE Of any IN.
attractions the pl2inti IN error was warranted In
the IN erence fdat the bills were annexed TO the
draiis to seedre their acceptance, and were to be
SURRENDERED thereu0On, and that therefore they
are not nabe to an action LOT the surrender II.
W. Pane and H. c. Hutcnins for plalntiH In error;
W. G. Russell Tor defendant.
No l4s. Smith vs. Nich0ls-Appeal from the Cir.
cut, Court for Massachusetts.-The appellant
sought by this action to protect q patent for q
fabric composed of elastic or india rubber cords.
covered top and bottom BY nbr0us filing threads,
,nterwoyen with hDrous warp threads between
the rubber cords. The patent Is claimed to cover
All sucp abrlcs. The case was decided adversely
to the patent below on the ground that the .abri6
claimed was known to commerce some years 0e.
fore the date OF the patent me patent was on.
tanned In 184o, and II was alleged that fAbrica
dertlca with that covered Dy II were MADE IN thr1
country and imported from Europe as early az
1915. The case comes here from this decision, ana
n Is con tended that certain disclaimers nled SUBS
sequent to the patent limit the Invention 70 q
fabric which was not hitherto known; but the ap-
pellee claims that the case IL to be determined ~
the original patent, without reference to the ais
chalmers. O. Mason tor appellant; Glnord
Dean for appellee.
THE CUSTOM HOUSE