The New York herald., 1876-01-23
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

WASHINGTON, Jan %, 1870
The following argued in the United States
Supreme Court yesterday
No. GAS. United States Ashheld-Appeal from the
Court OF Caims-The question in this is the
structon Of the acts Of Congress fixing the pay OF
watchmen in the public grounds. The claimant was
employed in Reservation No 2 Of the public grounds
from January, 1867, TO May. 1870 under the Commis-
sioner of Public Buildings while that Office existed
and aflerward under the Chief Engineer OF the Army,
in charge Of those grounds The Court below decided
that the act OF 1866 fixed the salary at $780, and that
the act Of March, 1862 reducing certain salaries, did
not apply to this Office employment because II
not position executive department The
government that the intention OF the
that il should be applicable to the present case Case
submitted on the briefs.
J. s Blair for government Carlisle and Mcpherson
for claimant
Circuit Court for the Northern District Of Illinois,
This another action on municipal bonds issued in
aid OF the Dixon Peoria and Hannibal Railroad Com
pany and the Court decided that the bonds having
been placed upon the market for sale and purchased
before maturity in the usual course of business, with
out notice Of any defect in them, the holder
titled to recover This ruling assigned error here
and 1t Is said the bonds arc not authorized by the
State constitution. Case submitted on the printed
briefs Hopkins, Morrow and Johnson for plaintiffs
In error; Wilson and Perry for defendants
No 754 Mead et al VS.. Pinyard-Appeal from tho
Circuit Court for the Western District OF Wisconsin
This a bill TO embrace specific performance OF a
contract to sell real estate ocatcd IN the county OF
Bemen, Michigan. Performance decreed and the
action is assigned as error, because there
dtions between Others which TO bo settled be-
fulfilled Case submitted on the printed briefs. T. s.
Smith for appellants; Fitzgerald and Bacon for ap
pellees.
Company-Appeal from the Court Of Claims.-The ap
peees recovered below $257 6Ss the amount Of GER
tcate given for work done for the Bureau OF Steam
Engineering, the certificate stating that payment would
be made upon appropriations provided 0y Congress-
The government here insists that the Court erred IN
the judgment because subsequently to the making OF
the certificate the appelees were requested to sur.
render II for the purpose or iurther examination OF
md fhovr ncad Ia IA ts Aid lho
Court wrong IN its conclusion OF law that tho
United States were bound by the settlement made.
Case submitted the briefs s =. Phillips, Solicitor
General for government; Joseph Casey for claimants
No. 55S Gilman and others vs. Illinois and hissis-
peals from the Circuit Court for Iowa-The question
in this Is whether In giving mortgage or deed Of
trust on its property, tolls income and franchises
railroad company may also incumber its future
nrs 80 that they liable to garnshee process
by its Judgment creditors The company had so mort
gagged its revenues and the Court below decided that
was competent for IL to do So and that the Judgment
creditors we're entitled to the relief sought Il
here contended that the deed Of trust was never excr
clscd that the took possession that
il cannot therefore, be made available to defeat the
rights OF the appellants Case submitted without argu
ment j. 5. Richman and G. g. Wright for appellants;
J. d. Cation and William NJ. Evarts for appellees
No 542 McManus, mnistratix, VS.. O'Suiivan ct
a-Error the Supreme Court Of California This Is
action TO recover possession OF portion Of what Is
known ''outsde lands In the city OF San Francisco:
that Is lands outside OF the charter boundary line OF
1S51 but within the limits OF the city when the action
was begun The plaintiff claimed the possession of her
husband from July 1854 to January, 1861 tho time OF
his death; but admitted, for the purposes OF the case
that the defendants had held clear open and exclusive
possession for more than ave years before the COM
mencement ofthe action lS67 against her and hoe
predecessors and the estate Of her deceased husband
but not against the county. Nonsuit was granted
the statute OF limitations being held bar the action
It here held that The estate having been McMan
Tor the time stated The fact was evidence of do
raignment under the Spanish grants and that the
hcManus tenants being IN constructive possession
the Sth OF March, 1866 the OF that date vested 10
in them Notwithstanding the wrongful possession Of
the defendants, who entered without color OF title and
with knowledge OF the hcManus title and gained
nothing by the act Case submitted on the briefs
Benham, hoorse, Campbell and Hydenfeldt for plain
! ttn; Coghlain and Irvine for defendants