The New York herald., 1875-12-18


Argument has bOen heard in the Supreme Court on
the following cases.
No 546 Meyer and Evans Hcman-Error Ia
The Circuit Court for the Southern Distric, Of Ohio
The plaintiffs in and the defendant also
signecs In trust OF two insovent firms in Cincinnati
for the benefit OF creditors The trust decd ed in
the Probate Court OF the county as required by law and
trustees took possession OF all the property Of the
firms and proceeded 20 convert II into monoy and pay
of the creditors, under tho laws OF Ohio. More than
six months tho execution OF this deed or trust
a petition in bankruptcy was filed against the trims
and Heman was appointed assignee in bank
ruptcy. Up TO this time Hellman had continued
to act as one of the trustees under the State law
and has not resigned the position still has
he been removed therelrom. immediately thereafter
he Instituted repevin TO possess himself OF the personal
property OF the firms The plaintiffs in error answered.
setting up the official and hducary capacity and elaine
ing the right OF possession under the laws Of OHIO Tho
Judgment however, was against them, and thoy hero
maintain that Holman being with them in Joint pos
session OF the property under express deed Of trust
cannot maintain repeyn against them that tho deed OF
trust under winch they claim having been made in
good faith and without intent to violate or evade tho
Bankrupt act Is not affected by the operations Of that
act that the Bankrupt act did not require this action
the part Of Hellman and that there was no property
left in the firms after this deed OF trust which Helman
was entitled to assignee in bankruptcy Case sub
mittcd w. T. Forrest for plaintiffs In error; A. A.
Kramer for defendant
No a. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company VS.
Tsdde-Error TO the Circuit Court for owa-Tns was
an action policy Of insurance on tho life OF the
husband OF the defendant in error Tho chief question
was whether tho husband was dead the company
denying that he The plaintiff below offered
letters Of administration issued TO her upon her hus
bands estate proof Of bis death and the Court ruled
that this evidence sufficient TO make prlaa facis
case and to change tho burden OF proof from the plain
tin 10 the company The Court requested TO
charge that as the plaintiff ruled in her own
right and not in her representative capacity,
she must establish the death OF the husband
independently OF the letters Of administra-
ton and that in such case the letters OF
administration are not prima fdcie evidence OF tho
death where the suit brought by the adminstra-
tnr hfa hp 4
assigned az here, the plaintiffs in error contend
ing that the letters not competent proof Of DEATH
because transaction between two parties ought not to
operate to the disadvantage OF third and because no
man ought 10 be bound by proceedings to which he Ia
stranger. Senator Frehnshuysen and +, l. stanton
for plaintiff in error; George Crane for defendant.
No. 81. Mueller and Zmmer VS. Ehlcrs-Error TO ths
Circuit Court for the Eastern District OF Wisconsin,
The defendant in error brought this suit 10 recover
tract OF land In Ozauhce county, Wisconsin, claiming
title undcr Sheri7s deed foreclosure oil mortgage
The trial before the Court without jury and the
judgment WAS FOR the defendant here. The writ OF
maintains that the judgment record In the fore
closure proceedings improperly admitted IN evi-
dencc because It's face i showed want Of personal
service which lett the court rendering the Judgment
without jurisdiction Submitted on tho printed brci
OF Matt H. Carpenter FOR plaintiff IN error and argued
by +, W. Cotzhausen for defendant
In the Supreme Court OF the United states oday,
on motion OF Mr. George W. Paschal, Henry = Sew.
ereus, Esq, Of Kalamazoo, Mich, wns admitted TO
practice as attorney and counsellor oi TINS court
No 5sS The United states, appellants, 70 Archibald
Mckee ct al-Ths cause was submitted on printed
argument By Mr. Solicitor General fhllps OF counsel
FOR appellants and by Mr. w. Penn Clarke for the ap
pellces under the twentieth rule.
No. S4S Joshua Converse plaintiff in error. vs. the
City or Port Scott-This cause was submitted on
printed arguments hy Mr.. G. O. Yoaton, OF counsel for
the plaintiff In error and By Mr. A. l. Williams for the
defendant IN error under the twentieth ruic
No % Marie A. N. Pollard, plaintin In error VS.
Jacob Lyon This cause was argued by Mr. A. a.
Riddle and Mr. James II. Bradley, OF counsel for tho
plaintiff in error and BY Mr. ". S. Cox for tho defend
ant IN error.
No es Reuben Wright, plaintiff In error rs Jonas
n Tcbbctts This cause argued by Dir. George W.
Paschal Of counsel for the pianth In error, ana "
Mr. r. D. Mussey for the defendants In error.
Adjourned until Monday, the third DAY oil January
next at twelve o'clock.