The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1876-11-09

Ihe following DECISIONS were rendered II
the Supreme Court of The United States o.,
Monday last:
WOMEN LAWYERS DENIED ADMISSION.
In the matter OF the application OF Mrs
Belya A. Lockwood for admission to practice
as an attorney and counsellor of this Court
Upon the presentation of this application
| the Chief Justice said that notice OF this MO
| ton having been previously brought to his
| attention, he had been instructed by the
Court to announce the following decision
upon It: by the uniform practice OF the
Court from its organization up to the pres
emit time, and by the fair construction of its
rules, none but men are admitted to practice
before 1t rs attorneys and counsellors. This
ls in accordance with immemorial usage in
England, and the law and practice in all the
STATE until within.a recent period. and the
Court does. not feel called upon TO make q
change until such 4 change is required by
statute, Or more extended practice in the
highest Courts OF the States After this
announcement Mrs. Lockwood and friends
withdrew. Mr.. A. G.. Riddle made mo-
ton, and stated that Mrs. Lockwood had
been practitioner atthe bar of the Supreme
Court OF the District for more than three
years, ana was therefore brought withinsthe
f IMPORTANT TO TAXPAYERS:
No. 80. Board Of Commissioners of Tippe-
canoe county, Ind, vs.. Treasurer OF SAID
county; error to the Supreme Court of the
state. In this case it is held that the States
nave power to direct the delivery of certifi-
cafes OF stock given to counties in return for
subscriptions i'll aid OF local railroads to tax
payers personally for their private benefit,
and fliiS n 1ixoct tI<r 4
tie to the stock originally issued to them,
The Commissioners in this case resisted the
law which directed the County Treasurer to
Issue such certificates to those who had. rs
appeared by the records of his office. paid
taxes which aided the roads, and the State
Court affirmed the right of the Legislature TO
transfer public title to private persons. rs
provided in the act. This Court affirms the
Judgment, saying that there can be no doubt
OF the power of the State to direct a restit,,-
ton to taxpayers Of a country or other MIL
nicipal corporation of property exacted from
them by taxation, into whatever form the
property may be changed, so long as it re-
mains in possession OF the municipality Mr.
Justice Field delivered the opinion.
A DECISION AFFECTING DIsTILLERs RE-
rA vERsED. psgsg1s
No. "a. United States vs.. Ferrary ct al:
error to the Circuit Court for the Eastern
District OF Tennessee. In this case distil-
Ter, the defendant III error, refused to paw
certain taxes on the products of his distil-
lery OH tho ground that copy OF - second
survey had not been served upon him, and
the Court below sustained his position. 1t
IL here held that there was no second survey,
all that was done being the reformation Of
the estimate resting on the first measure.
ment, and that the Court below erred in
confounding the survey required by the
tenth section OF tho act, with the estimate
and determination OF The producing capacity
Justice Strong delivered the opinion.
NOTICE OF FRAUD AS AFFECTING UNCoM
sE PLETED CONTRACTS.
No. y, Dresser VS.. Missouri and Iowa
Railroad Company; error to the Circuit
Court for Iowa. This was an action on a
promssory note, to which the defence was
that it was obtained by fraud. The plain
tiff in error had made payment upon the
note before he had notice Of the fraud But
becoming aware of the fraud, subsequently,
as alleged, he made full payment thereon.
The Court gave him judgment only for the
portion paid before notice of fraud, and that
Judgment is here affirmed, the decision be
ing that the portion Of an unperformed. CON
tract which is completed after notice Of
fraud, is not within the principle which pro-
tects bol.a fide purchaser.
TAX ON, NoN-REsrDENT INSURANCE COM
PANIE3.
Mr.. Justice Hunt delivered the opinion.
No. 81, Home Insurance Company Of New
York ys. The City Council of Augusta. error
to the Supreme Court of Georgia. In this
case the Court sustained a tax of $3.50 inn
posed upon the plaintiff in error, under an
ordinance imposing the same tax OH al fire,
marine and accidental insurance companies
located or doing business within the limits
of the city, there being no Discrimination in
the matter against nonresident companies,
and authority therefore being found in the
police power of the State. Mr.. Justice
Swayne delivered the opinion.