The New York herald., 1876-02-29
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

WASHINGTON, FeD ~, 1870.
The Supreme Court to-day rendered decisions in the
following cases.
No. 5s4 Union Pacific Railroad Company VS. Hall
aud Morse-Error TO the Circuit Court for the District
of Iowa.-In this cause the Court hold that Hall and
Morse, residents OF Council Bluffs citizens bore suf-
ncicnt interest TO give them standing in Court de-
mand the performance OF its obligations by the COM
pany and that Il is the duty Of the latter under the
acts OF Congress- to operate its whole road
nected continuous linc and that the bridge the
Missouri River between Omaha and Council Bluffs
Is part OF the road TO be used in connection
with and part OF their entire line
1t is said that If Congress did not intend require the
construction OF the road rom the imaginary line in the
middle Of the river channel which would be mpos.
sbility and which is the legal boundary of Iowa. the
must nave oeen that tne nitai point snould
be either on the Iowa or on the Nebraska shore and
the Nebraska shore was Intended, why 1t not
designated2 1t is impossible to give a satisfactory
answer to the question by the Court to the question
why the Iowa boundary designated If tho eastern
the Iowa shore OF the river intended to be
the terminus of the road The authority of the COM
pany TO build the road to the Iowa within
itself power to build bridge the Missouri River.
No express grant to bridge the river was needed as
whatever bridges were needed the authorized line
as fully authorized as the line itself; all authority
that was given to tho company was railroad company
ana not us bridge company. The bridge to
bic the road to connect with other roads and 1t
be built for no oher's use. They not allowed to
charge rates OF toll over it which they did charge
upon other portions OF their line The acts chartering
the company manifest no intention to distinguish be-
tween the bridge over the Missouri River and other
bridges the line OF tho road If it is part of their
road. Neither is any bridge between the Missouri and
the western boundary or Nevada, Tor the power
build bridges was given in the words Affirmed.
Mr.. Justice Strong delivered the opinion Mr.. Justice
Bradley dissenting is OF the opinion that the Missouri
River Is generally understood TO be the Western
boundary OF Iowa, and that the fair construction of
the charter OF the Union Pacific Company that their
road was to oxiend from that river westwardly
No. 157. Haldeman ct al the United States-Error
to the Circuit Court for Kentucky-This was suit on
the official bond of Haldeman as Surveyor of Customs
at Louisville. The defence that former action
for tho same cause had been discontinued the pay
ment Of the costs by the defendants
&c ha1d hat tr1.rr
the cause was not prosecuted is equivalent to nothing
further than the record OF suit no
bar TO a subsequent action To bar future action
there must be tho adjudication release of some
right. There must be at least trial of right
tween parties before there be OF the con-
troversy. Affirmed
Mr.. Justice Davis delivered the opinion.
No. 154 The Republican River Bridge Company VS..
tho Kansas Pacific Railroad Company-Error TO tho
Supreme Court OF Kansas-In this case il is decided
that where right is set up under act OF Congress
in State court any matter OF law found in the
record decided by the highest court of the State
ing the right to set up under the Of Congress may
be reviewed here on the merits. The Court
1866, grants to the railroad company certain
Ian lands Is OF the Fort Riley Military reservation
right was contested by the bridge company. Affirmed.
Mr.. Justice Miller delivered the opinion.
No. LAG. Raymond VS. Thomas-Error to the Supreme
Court of South Carolina this 1t Is held that the
OF the rebellion terminated in South Carolina on
the ID of April, 1866, and that the military officers re-
naming in command there between that date and tho
return Of the State TO the Union had authority un
der the acts of March and July 1867 10 annul decree
OF a court of equity of the State. Hence such
order made by General Candy, was an arbitrary
stretch OF authority and properly dsregarded by
the Court below Affirmed.
Mr. Justice swayne delivered the opinion.
No. l4l. Shepey ct al-Error to the Supreme Court
of Missouri This was an afrmanco of decree under
the practice OF Missouri, determining the title OF
fractional section of land In that State uron questions
arising from the respective patents of the parties Mr.
Justice Field delivered the opinion.
No. I39. Morrison ct al VS.. Jackson-Error TO tho
Circuit Court for the Eastern district of Missouri
the alrmance Of Morrson's title to certain land
near ST. LOUIS against the plaintiffs in error who
claimed under the samo original title. Mr.. Justice
Clifford delivered the opinion.
No. 140 Same Benton-Error to the
Court-Same questions Affirmed. Justice Clifford
delivered the opinion
The Court will tomorrow tako up the Illinois n-
junction cases.
No. 159 The Mutual Life Insurance Company VS..
Q Jeries administrator &c, in error TO the Circuit
Court Of the United States for the Eastern District of
Missouri-Mr Chief Justice Waite announced the de-
csion OF tho Court reversing tho judgment OF the said
Circuit Court In this cause with costs on the authority
or Jenrcs, administrator, VS.. The Economi3al In
surance Company (22 Wall, Az, and Tho Etna In
surance Company VS.. France decided at this term
No. 15s. The propeller John Taylor, &C, appellants
We. The New Jersey Railroad and Construction Com
pany.-Appea from the Circuit Court OF the United
States for the Southern District of New York Mr.,
Chief Justice Waite announced the decision of the
Court affirming the decree Of the said Circuit Court in
Case l6i The Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance
Company, plaintiff in error Louisa Coverstop, in
error the Circuit Court Of the United States for the
the decision of the Court affirming the judgment OF the
said Circuit Court in this cause with costs.
Case 576 David +. Barney, appellant The Steam
boat d. r. Martin, &c Tho motion 10 dismiss this
cause was submitted printed arguments by Mr.
Thomas Young in support OF the same and by Mr.. j. NJ
GuItean In opposition thereto.
Case sos. Peter B. Amory, plaintiff in error VS..
Samuel and John Amory, executors, &c.
No. 500. Peter b. Amory, plaintiff in error, vs.. S.
b. and John Amory, executors, &c.-The motion TO
dismiss these causes submitted printed argu-
ment by Mr.. Matt II. Carpenter, in support OF the
same, and by Mr.. George F. Edpunds in opposition
thereto.
No 6s4 The State of Louisiana OK rel, John T.
Macauley, plaintiff Charles Clinton, Audi
tor, &c.-The motion to dismiss this was sub
mittcd on printed arguments by Mr.. j. q A. Fellows
and Mesrs Durant and Horner in support OF the same
and by Mr. J. Fl. Kennard and Messrs. Chapman and
Hosmer In opposition thereto.
No. las Henrietta Hoffman, appellant vs. Tho John
Hancock Mutual Lie Insurance Company.-Thc argu-
ment of this cause continued by Mr. J. A. Garfield,
OF counsel for tho appellant and by Mr. H. ]. Terrell
for the appellee.
Adjourned until tomorrow.