New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-11-28
TINE UYITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

W,suiviruN. Nov. 27.-The supreme Court Of
In the uartH ior habc1s cnsrRs % kgstriqS
anil ie9aison SS'1 ,S ~ sAi w., Were i in
Louisiana ANA tia West virginia haG n.vI Syusi 20 we
d,uod the Coar hoiiRg that neither position i5
ina @da o. lie whisky Tie ChoiJusiice de
Sn1 IS NH 5e Town Of south Ottawa agt Perkins
Board OF supervisors Of Kendall comfy ag Post error 70
he validity Of CERTAIN municipal bonds issued In d o certain
railroad companies and also affirm The railing below by witch
Get ID the night TO onr eyenee 10 show that ne
10 onip,p holding tsat such corporation having issued s
bombs put them the market a. eOm,T.ia paper npoh
asans bona tde holder bond Law never
ede tie question directly ths court Is eft free % answer It,
Dsennpg 90 10 Insurance company OF New.
YORK ast. Anme NJ. SNYDER and same agt 4 " snyder
vyia IN these TIRE insured. when asked how lsng
since was ATTENDED si h. " S 4Syte.y sn and % az
injury winch he had been attended by aphySea as shown
attended court Instructed the nry sat u he MAS
was the insured as there was NO excepon 20 tins
instreSv of pteathR he acton were Increased by
Instead of lessened Mr. Justc Davis delivered ue opinion
COMPANY or t 20 The Crn court for Kentucky-n these
cases the that the restriction in the bill OF aag Of
the express company providing mat te CGmpa1y Should
package occ,ioned By hre DOS not pr0SSet tes e9nPa
gcncc carriers their servants or agents and therefore
mat The COMPANY - sspGns6e iSs lol9s IN sHGa cases
pioyed Oy the transportation Of the package TIC rai'
express Company the express his charge the
agent Of the exp S company enp9ygu ana paa oy III tne
service performed Is the service OF the exprvs
duty incumbent npon tbs express COMPANY and upon no one
persons Dyed do particular service NEST be h one
who cayo The employment RoVersedi Justice slrohs oe
No. 6S-shaw agt The United states appeal from the
vessel while in Government service the claim being thatit
had been Impressed IL s held s %hstessf hg %Se " h o
vessel service the transaction ultimately ended IN
contracted npon tns s1 ~ sne Asss
snch contract United states NOS liable to the claim
ant for and Of course could not be 70 the insurance
companies which were subrogaed 10 his rights Affirmed;
Justice Field delivered the opinion
Company the Circuit Court for the District Of Con-
s s.9 S court ho so nss 5as Of s s
thu Internal Revenue act does not embrace earnings
eoen Sut 6as rsiereneo % rev adding
pc mnen value Of the capital and when these are made
creased value OF the new the odd when IN good repair Al
No oSIsephen TSfty plaintiff in srrcr agt The Freed
mans savings and Trnst Company IN the supreme
Vsr tSe opinion q the Court armns the Judgment Of
sald supreme Court IN ths cause with costa
United States appeal from 1' the Court Of Sascs
msnt Of The sid Court q Claims in this cause
No IL lorEinallEx parte John Henderson petitioner
S SG Srsd the opsSR Of the COURT
denying the petition Tor nao1as sorpgs ~ these causes
lant 30 7SeIES psre John pSttlOner appel
az in srros ass sdsii no isy5F agpYs,SsSsss
plaintiff In error agt shden OF az; 10 tesJosspnlne
saelI deceased; 30 e6e-JosSphins Hale Ames VIE 40,
me sS oa SSsa s a
Chof Justice Waite delivered the opinion OF the court afru
ing Of said supreme cou, In these eause with
costs = :. $500. =,
s No o y sOa.h Carolina OK i%1ssa IN Error
surme Court OF the STATE 81 south Carolina Chiefly
SS Of sad soprsns Court IN s osSse with costa
no u i October Term, 1870 Thomas Osborne OF a. ap