New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-12-07
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

NAsHINGTOV. Dec. G-Thr United states supreme
Caurt rendered decisions IN The following cases
no. i--Realregard and MAY act se recriyer IN error
ii acon If case The receiver ~ the Frst National
Nrw orleans. 10 recover ~ The plaintiff n error ani one
Company upward Of S-@7 600 alleged 10 have been over
whether there was ccparfncrsp formed between Beaure
cari and Other defendants Dog thc agreement MAJ 10 een
haD for TIE partnership debts Dor tAeir ltyanc~
and aurarsld became from bes,nung Jointly a1'e With
the lsns compensated icr eztin rishd ~ hc I'M
den~-. u @, the Of te .s,L 10 i tna %r' e.; , ,e
vaol" claimed n.ttah OFF e'vcrty h,'s ~, .ol ol'-
~ r = ID, amo 70 a. ond The our i,a tiH , ~,
virh Hesurerdri uat ans rfa- M r th 'at t t'e
i~c correct justice Field dycrrd me opinion.
M. 4,sso1soa 90. Jackson Appeal from Ire -'r1-me
Cont o ihr District - Coianua contest vas De- v,en
+a rl.rf- ei.i ,eaq he'd IN fae gt.. name vas lcr
cour. below found That IL belonged equally 90 both and
Cont hold me re of the Common
erty of De vie, stu hg Liz ascent shr conli RE-
n the bod.ns o. the land N hcf oen name me-
dsmoi satisfactory eud-nce Of t,e has
Field delivered the opinion dissenting Mr. jus
No. IN, baltimore and Potonrc Ralrosd Comrsnv
set The trustees ei ne SKIN i'IesOgt"jAn 1ilrei
Dee Court affirm tae lalgmcft eos e plaintiffs IA
b. of me rv of iaf Ipyoi~c T.. the -rois med
affecting merits ~ e coutorery rart of e record thns
a." nlision. tnc atrrancc OF which ne wr.i - error
taken therefore. dec i' - ~ te
that fe warrants Tor i.e -uWunAlnl Ut
not Authorized nF law ana
tna required bY not admin rtere' tue DC
cIel0n a also favor OF fhr Church. Tie objection
70 Jurisdiction OF tie Court below, Do
caGsO the rf,e was not removed into mar
court of aupeh rom The Special TORN, IL led
hiil
fust.lo, ~ Congress &c. Justice ffurd deli cred
opinion sir Justice Bradley did moi rio IN 90" case
Court sr the district oi NeJersey motion ." re-
NIT Circuit Court lr rehcar1rt, ana y
denied the loti1. 80 dear that after appeal
u equity t7 Court. cannot moton sci a.ide .
% below and rcleriir. or moiiv tur
appealed FROM ami that upun hearing OF lc caus"
NJ chief u~trt y, ltc delivered ihe opinion.
atDaIer 20 a. a-t Brown appeal nom TIE decree OF
Tie Circuit tiC District 0i LoGs4la.lu ms case
u heid thaI Wht, TIE suit s brought y the trustee 20 r.
tlir qfrft a. ruce u 20 s-"n IN no
Wis affecting hs relation with DIE ctiilf que iILh 4 b. I'M
necessary 20 maze fe hitter parties and that ths s me
settled re II equity feadSg and pracce ON me iacts o
sad Aa he doctrine n condition prfceih con
tended Tor bv tie appellants can have no Application
Affirmed. III Justice SwagAe dtf rfeo thc opinion.
64T-AficrfnI ct a. srf iuSe ei al rrr1r 70 the S
pr.me ne tn- rs held hat where
f, supreme co. modified the
judgment a. nferl CONT aud ti not permit further pr
~ The Inferior IF tr defendants oIscute 10 ne
modification and the Defendant 'd the Judgment
wit o. based upon iual luda n nj
% 20 dismiss denied Nj. chez lh-
tce Nsite delivered Use opinion. .
No. Gt+-L0Tc O. Lowe. same c0urf-Ihe motion Ia us
Of denied, the authority
Of tIe decision ln tie clsc s'oye.