The New York herald., 1875-12-03
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

WASHINGTON, Dec. z 1873
In the United States Supreme Court yesterday tho
following cases were argued
No So McMurray vs. Brown-Appeal from the
Supreme Court OF the District OF Columbia This is
suit brought by the appellee enforce lien for mate
rals furnished for the erection OF certain houses in
Washington, the property of the appellant, alleged TO
have been delivered pursuance verbal agreement
made with her husband her agent The defence was
that Brown had furnished the material TO one Perkins
the builder of the houses under contract with the
appellant, and who was, by the contract have one
OF them for building the other IL is, therefore,
tended that Brown was not in a position to die
chanics lien al the date OF the delivery OF the materials
and could not aftcrward, and his contract
special take house and lot Instead OF money for
tho materials he had no claim to lien IN any
The result OF the case WAS judgment TOR the appellee
and appeal to this Court where IL Is conended
all the property being the appellants the date OF
the delivery OF the lumber there no lien and that
the special contract also works failure Of the lien.
James + Edwards for appellant; <. l. Stanton for ap
pcllee
gan-Error TO the Supreme Court OF louisiana Nor
gan and Kennard were contestants for the office OF
Justice Of the supreme Court OF the State. Morgan
brought quo warranto and the State court decided the
In his favor under the ''act to regulate proceed
ings in controversies between persons claiming Ju-
dcial Office, passed. as alleged by kennard, by tho
Pnchback faction then In power, nine days after the
appointment ofMorgan, by pnchback acting Cover
nor and, to meet the emergency Of the The
writ OF insists that the statute is summary
one aud has deprived Kennard OF Office without due
process of law contrary TO the fourteenth amendment
as Il denied him the right or trial by jury Ii l. also
insisted that the statute is void because retroactive
Its operation. The defendant In contends that
the proceeding in quo warranto was duo process OF
law that there is no vested right in the TO trial
by Jury and that the act docs deprive kennard OF
any defence which existed when II was passed T. s.
Scmmes, Robert Mott and ~ T. Chapman for plaintiff
in error: Durant aud Horner for defendant
No. 23l. Home Insurance Company, Of New York Va
Davis 4 Stronach-Error TO the Supreme Court of
Michigan This suit by the defendants In error
10 recover upon policy Of insurance The question
upon the right OF removal to the federal court The
State refused tho companys application and 10
ia here contcndcd that the judgment IL Justified be-
cause the petition sufficiently shown TO be that
the corporation in not beng corporate
SEAL and because the bond rendered never had been
approved good and sufficient" by the court II Is
argued that neither of these conditions neces-
sary the authority OF the agent OF the company need
not under SEAL and the docs not require the
state court 70 approve the bond All that is required Is
good and sufficient security submitted on the printed
briefs g. W. hcCrary Tor pIalntin in error Randall
Benedict for defendants
No. 532 County OF Moultric vs. The Rockingtown
Ten Cent Savings Bank-Error the Circuit Court
Tor the southern district Of Illinois This was SUIT
upon bonds issued by the county IN aid Of the Decatur
Sullivan and Mattoon Railway Company The defence
was that the subscription never authorized and
that the bonds were never countersgned by the County
Clerk, as required by law The Court below gave
judgment for the defendant in error Il Is here
tended that the facts proved and found by the Court
did not warrant the conclusion OF law that the county
was liable. Submitted the printed briefs. Henry,
Pcnnell and Eden for plaintiff In error Culom Schoes
and Mather for appellant
On motion Of Mr.. J, q. Abbott Charles p Thompson.