Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-01-11
District Cases i'm the L. y. Supreme
fnnFf


Yesterday, in the Sur RENE Court of the
United States, the following District cases
were decided:
THE wALLACH CoSFIscArED PROPERTY
CASE.
Wallach eft al. VS.. Van Riswick; appeal
from the Supreme Court of the District
OF Columbia. In this case Chas. s. Wallach
was an officer OF the confederate army dur
ing the war. and while thus engaged his real
estate in Washington was confiscated, Van
Riswick becoming the purchaser at the sale.
AT the date OF confscatioD there was an in
cumbrance on the property for $1,000. which
was held by Van Riswick. After the war
Wallach returned to the city, and his wife
Joined him in deed of the property to Van
Risvick, the consideration being consider
able sum. Upon the death OF Wallach his
children brought this action, claiming that
after conhscation no title remained in their
father TO convey, and that, therefore, no.
thing was passed by the deed TO Van Ris-
WICK, and that they, as his heirs, had right
To redeem. To this bill the court below sus-
tanned the demurrer. ard the cause came
here, where IL Is held that the obvious mean
ing OF the legislation on the subject is that
the proceedings fOc confiScatiol and sale
shall not affect the ownership of the prop-
eTty after the termination of the offenders
natural life. After his death the land shall
pass or be owned by the heirs as if il had not
been forfeited, and that the forfeiture is COM
plete while IT lasts, leaving no estate in the
offender, nor, is 1t said, could a pardon To
Mallach operate to restore what the United
states had ceased TO hold. It could not give
back the property which had been sold, or
any interest In it, either in possession or re-
vision. Hence the deed 10 Van R,swick
passed no title, and at the death OF Wallach
the estate vested in his haiIs. The Judgment
below was reversed, and the cause remanded
delivered the opinion.
MRS. POLLARD vs.. JACOB LYON.
Marie y. n. Pollard, plaintiff in error. VS..
jacob Lyon. In error to the Supreme Court
OF the District of Columbia. Mr. Justice
Clifford delivered the opinion OF the court
afirmtpg the judgment of the said supreme
TVN IN - no, Al,
Lyon said of Mrs. Pollard that he had seen
her in bed with one Denty, and. Mrs. Pollard
recovered damages for Injury to her nama,
fame, &c, in the Circuit Court. The General
Term reversed the Judgment, holding that
she could not recover without alleging aud
proving special damage resulting from the
use of the language; that Judgment is here
affrmed, the court holding that in such a
case ii is necessary that the declaration
should set forth precisely in what way the
special damage resulted from the speaking
Of the words; that il is not sufficient TO allege
generally that the plaintiff has suffered spe-
cial damage or that the party has been put to
DIVORCE CASE
In the case OF Susan L. Allen, appellant
VS.. Thomas ID. Allen. Appeal from the Su-
preme Court of the District of Columbia.
Mr.. Chief Justice Waite announced the de-
cision of the court, affirming the decree of
the supreme court, with costs. The suit was
brought for divorce, and the question was
whether certain property held in the name
of the husband was purchased from the sep
8rate means of the wife, obtained from her
father, and was therefore legally hers, or
whether II was, in point of fact, the hus
bands. on the pleadings the question is.
whether the serving or process was such as
TO bind the husband, or whether il was void.
The decision below was for the husband, aud
this decision is affirmed.
AN OIL CASE.
Irwin LICK Oil company VS.. Marbury. APP
peal from the supreme Court of the District
of Columbia. This is an afliTmahce OF a de.
cree below dismissing of the oil company,
which sought 10 come in and share with Mar
bury the profits OF certain oil property in
West Virginia, which had been abandoned
by the company and had come into the pos
session of Marbury by way of security for
advances made TO the company, and which
by his enterprise was subsequently made
valuable. AS the company shared no part
of the disbursements which led 90 the appre-
CATION OF the property, and if the enterprise
had been failure would have declined to
share any of the losses, il is held that there
is 10 equity in the bill.
A COURT RULE SUSTAINED.
Samuel =. SmoOt, plaintiff in error, vs.
Charles +. Rittenhouse. In error 10 the SUI
preme Court of the District of Columbia.
Mr.. Chief Justice Waite announced the de-
clsiOn OF the court, Affirming the judgment
of the said supreme court in this cause with
costs. This was an appeal taken to test the
18th rule, which allows q judgment by de.
fault 10 be taken on the fling of an affiia-
Wit, aud the Supreme COnrt by this decision
suStains the rule.
MECHANICS LIENS IN THIS DISTRICT.
sarah McMurray ct al, appellants, VS..
Austin =. Brown. Appeal from the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia. Mr.. JUS
tlce Clifford delivered the opinion of the
court, affirming the decree of the said SUI
preme court in this cause, with costs. This
was an appeal on the question whether on
special contract TO furnish building mate
rial, on which the party agrees to accept real
estate in payment, and there is q breach OF
coltract to convey the same, a mechanics
lien can be enforced against the building
erected. Brown furnished the lumber ami
brick for certain houses built fol- Mrs. Nc
Murray upon such contract. and she failed
10 convey the property as agreed. The court
below enforced the lien. Here IL was insisted
that as Brown was not entitled to the lien
at the date of his contract, and could not
have then filed IL, he could not do so after
wards, and that his remedy is action for
breach OF contract. II was also said that as
one OF the houses built was TO become the
property of the builder, as a consideration
for the building of the other, and both the
houses therefore not being the property OF
tract, Brown could not in any event have
enforced his lien against both. The court
below affirmed the decree of the Equity
Court suojecting the property TO the lien.
The Supreme Court now affirms this decision.
CLAIM AGENT CASE.
Reuben Wright, plaintiff in error, VS..
Court of the District of Columbia. Mr.. Chief
Justice Waite delivered the opinion OF the
court, affirming the judgment OF the said
supreme court In this cause, with costs and
interest. This was an action TO recover
S2,054 for services alleged To have been rem
dered by Tibbets in securing claim OF
Wright under a treaty with the ChoctaW
and ChjckaSaw tribes of Indians. The &C
ton was based upon a contract in writing
acknowledging the services and promising
TO pay therefor One-tenth of the amount re-
covered. The sum claimed was the proper
tiGn stipulated of the money actually re-
ceived by Wright. The judgment below be-
ing for the plaintiff, 1t is here urged that the
character of the services rendered was con-
traTy TO public policy and such as to vitiate
the contract. They were services TO swell
the amount of the Choctaw fund in the
hands of the United States. The plaintiff
was 10 become the advocate to plead before
the agent OF the trustee against the benef-
ciary. The United States stand guardian
for the Indians, and they have no right to
permit this interference against the inter
ests of the Indians as their wards. Itwas no
tribunal for counsel. IL is said the contract
is within the definition OF champerty, pro-
viding, as 1t does, TO pay a certain proper
ton OF the sum recovered.
BILL TO SET ASIDE A SALE.
John W. Butterfield, appellant, VS.. George
Usher. Appeal from the Supreme Court OF
10 ~ nf fpln