The New York herald., 1876-09-06
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
DECISIONS.

WASHINGTON, Sept s, 1876.
JUDICIAL oyrIcE-vALIDIrY DECISIONS pK
YAcro JrpGE-TuEY CONCLUDE THE PUBLIC AND THIRD
PARrKs.
No. 55S-Robert B. Boiling, plaintiff in error, VS..
Gustavus Lersner. In to the Supreme Court OF
Appeals OF the State Of Virginia.
The Circuit Court OF Farqucr county. Virginia. rem
dered decree in this cause September l3th 1861 From
this Lersner prayed appeal to the
Of Appeals May H. 1880 This allowed by $. Will
loughby Judge. Upon this allowance the appeal was
dockcied in the appellate Court and the parties ap
pcarcd without objection or protest, and were heard
on the hearing, the decree OF the Circuit Court
versed, and the rcmandcd, with instructions
proceed directed. Then the the Circuit
Court upon the mandate OF the appellate Court.
Boiling appeared and objected to the entry OF the de-
cree which has been ordered, for the reason, among
Others that Willoughby, the judge who allowed the
appeal, had been appointed to his Office by the com
mandiug general exercising military authority IN Nir
gina the reconstruction acts OF Congress- and
that these unconstit ional and VOID This
objection was overruled and the decree entered ac-
cordipg TO the mandate. From this decree Boiling
appeal TO the supreme Court OF Appeals where
the action OF the Circuit Court was affirmed To re-
this decree OF allrmance tho present writ OF
ror has been prosecuted. lie cannot re-exanine the
judgment decree OF State court simply because
federal quest on was presented TO that court for
determination TO give us jurisdiction 1t must appear
that such question IN TACT decided or that It's de-
csion was necessarily Involved in the judgment or de-
cree rendered In this case Boiling presented TO
the Court Tor its determination the question OF the con-
stnutonaiy OF the reconstruction acts. This was
federal question, but The record does not show that II
actually decided that It's decision necessary
TO the determination OF the cause, while IL perhaps
sufficiently appears thnt the judge appointed under
the authority OF the acts in ques on II also appears
that hc acting in the discharge of the duties OF his
Office, that he had the reputation OF beng tho
aiter tho allowance of the appeal the
dockcted IN the appellate Court; that Boiling
appeared there; that he submitted himself to
the jurisdiction Of that Cour; without objection and
presented his for adjudication; that tho case was
heard and decided and that the objection 10 the quail
fcauon OF the judge who allowed the appeal was mado
Tor the first time IN the Circuit Court when TITO case
came down with the mandate.
From these facts held TO be clear that the
have been disposed ol in the State Court without
decliing upon the question of the validity OF the
construcon acts ani that IL actually was So all the
Judge having argued that Willoughby de ydcto
Judge, and that his acts were valid in respect the
pubic and third parties even though he might not be
rightiully in Office
Motion TO dismiss granted Tue Chicf Justice do
vc.ed the op.nlon
CONNECTICUT MoRrG AGEs-ruEy SPECIFICALLY pE-
SCRIBE DEBT sEcURxD OTHERWISE THEY ARE
No. o64-James VI. Townsend, appellant vs. Alfred
Todd and rhiando Armstrong, assignces OF George T.
The validity OF tie mortgage of $4,000 is attacked on
the ground that IL is IN vocation OF The spirit and policy
o; the and recording system OF the state OF
Connecticut The Dstrct and the Circuit Judges each
familiar with the statutes aud decisions Of that state
sustained THIS proposition. The precise objection
the mortgage is that does not truly describe The debt
| intenucd 10 be secured The mortgage, by It's terms
gwen 10 secure the pay cnt OF note oil TOO 900,
dated April H. 1873 executed by George Newnal. 10
| the order OF James VI. Townsend. payable on
demand, with interest at the OF seven
per cent, payable semi-annuay in advance The
| bill alleges, and IL is found by the Distrc, Judge
to be true that Newhall not, the date of tue
mortgage aud when the same recorded, indebted
| TO Townsend IN any sum Whatever which secured
by said note The understanding was that Iownse. q
should endeavor to borrow money or available securi-
ties furnish TO Newhal's creditors in satisfaction
his debts, and tue mortgage WAS 10 stand as security
for the repayment OF the values thus advanced THIS
mortgage and note were TO be placed ia the hands Of
one WHITE and If Townsend unable 10 render tho
pccuniary aid the sum OF $4,000 to be indovscc
| upon the note and mortgage by White, and the mort
gage was TO stand as security tor the Chapman mort
| gage Of $1,000 and a debt OF g.. 800 duo u
| Townsend also secured by another mort gafe
| Townsend did obtain borrow none,
| or securities from any third person oil
! the faith OF this mortgage but in reliance upon th
security OF the mortgage he did inGorse New
| hall and pay money TO an amount exceeding So 600
Tho struggle OF the part OF Townsend Is TO hold HI
| mortgage ior this sum OF $4,000
The OF tue courts OF the State holding tha
tue morip pagc truly describe the debt intended q
be secured and that Il Is not sufficient tnai the debt
of such character that ight hBvo been secured b.
the mort gage had II been truly described this Cour
follows and airms tho decree vacating and cancellin
| tho mortgage.
| Mr. Justice Hunt delivered the opinion.