The New York herald., 1875-12-10
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.


In tho United States Supreme Court the following
cases argued yesterday
No 400. Black ct al VS.. United states-Appeal from
tho Court OF Clams-This was a suit upon contract
for the transportation OF supplies for the government
the claim being for 900 900 pounds from Fort d. A.
Russell to Fort Phil Kearney, distance OF $3.50 miles,
and for $50 900 pounds from Fort Fetterman to Fort
Phil Kearney 100 miles The question upon tho
construction OF the under which the supplies
transported The territory through which the
supplies had to be taken was divided geographically
into routes of which the named in the contract
numbered l. For all supplies carried this
route the government has paid the stipulated price, but
claim made for the travel Of the teams OF the car
rying capacity of the amounts stated, with the
empty wagons, TO the place OF loading The
legality of this claim the government denied. The
Court Of Claims divided in opinion on question and
judgment pro forma entered against the claimants
TO give opportunity for appeal TO this Court The theory
Of the appellant is that the Court will not construe the
contract so as to permit the government TO order the
teams sent to certain post hundreds of miles away to
receive stores for transportation without pay upon the
plea that IL was only for the transportation
was 70 DO PAID ior Such contract ~ y sad, could
not be performed. Submitted on the briefs. Y. i.
Peck for appellant; f. B. Smith for the government
No. 81. Ives a. Green vs. Hamilton administrator
Error TO the Circuit Court for tile Eastern Dis
trict OF Michigan-This was a suit by Hamilton,
as administrator OF Hamilton, for the infringe
ment OF patent for an improvement in saw
mills by which is impaired to the saw
rocking motion when cutting, 20 that the movement
Of its toothed edge assimates to that OF tile whip or
pit saw operated by hand. The defence that tho
invention not new, but publicly known and
used prior TO the time OF its alleged invention Tho
judgment below for the paentee, and II is here
maintained that the claim is for a combination and
that being such, IL cannot be- nfrnged by the of
any number Of It's parts less than the whole by
different arrangement of the parts, and that the Court
erred refusing to charge and also in ruling that
the patent not anticipated by others In existence
at the time OF its issue. G. J. Hunt for plaintiff in
error; H. H. Wells and j. II. B. Latrobe for defendant
No. TO- Miner Bark Sunnyside and Pitts-Ap-
peal from the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of
! Mchigan-This is another action for collision The
occurrence the morning of June l3, 1862 upon
| Lake Huron. between the tug William Goodnow and
the Sunnysde The tug lay at anchor waiting for a
tow and the bark, coming the lake with brisk wind
at about nine knots hour struck the tug astarboard
the pilot house, sinking her within fifteen min
The District Court held the tug to be at fault in
keeping out of the way of the bark and that the
bark at fault in not observing that the tug
/ lying still, and divided the damages between them.
The Circuit Court reversed the Decree holding the tug
solely at fault; that the officer of the bark having
observed the lights of the tug, fully author
lied TO act upon the assumption that the steamer
would avoid him. The appeal insists that the bark had
right proceed on her course without haling the
! tug, and run her down when moments observation
would have shown the latter TO be lying still New
berry. Pond Brown for appellants II. Ii. Canhed for
appellee.