, 1876-07-27
THE COURTS.
A Novel Question Concerning the
Satisfaction Of a judg-
tnent.
An Important Admiralty Dects-
ion---Intcrcsting to Ship"
Cllnndlerg.
What Was Done in the Halls OF
Justice Yesterday.

What Was Done in the Halls OF
Justice Yesterday.
In the casc Of Hermann Dlcnncrltastttt vB.
Wells, Fargo & Co, navel question was yes.
tcrday before Judge Btodgctt. 1t seems that
come years ago plaintiff recovered judgment In
Nebraska for sou1e $1,000 ngal,lst Wells, Fargo
A Co. Subsequently suEt In debt was brought In
New York ON this Judgment, but, after waiting
year or 30 md dcspatring OF getting judgment,
Rtcnncrhsssett began Il suit here OF, tllts same
Nebraska judgment, aud obtained judy
tncnt a few days before IL was OBJ
ta!netl In New York. Three Judgments were
thercf0re existing at tho sanc time u tile satnc
claim. BY the 1Nw Of Nebraska, 10 per cent IT,
tcrcst per ann1isn was allowed on a judgment,
but, owing To inadyertenee, Judgment was only
obtained IN New York for the amount due, With
7pcr cent interest, that being The legal rate In
that atatc. Tic Whole amount was $l2, 455.1]
Here, however, tho Judgment Wis for tic
amount with 10 per cont interest, making some
el,tO0 difference.
Wells, Farao & Co. paid tho New York iulg
ment, and then made motion here yesterday
to have The judgment 1T tho United States Cir
cult Court here satistlc,, un tho ground TINT It
had o'rca'ly eccn paid; that there could not be
but one satisfaction; that tic eult here was for
tic same cause of action IA TINT In New lorki
aud that, having paid nlle Judgment, ttUy could
not u be eonpellcd 70 my anything ,n"rc. =,
=, The plslnttn claimed that tl,e amount OF the
Eey i Y"rk M juaEmeu. % Gn1y ~ sp applieda lied on On
ctdcd tliat TIC defendants must I'ay the differ
ence also between tile amount Of the
New York Judgment md the 0nc obtsacd here,
on The ground that ftl every State every court
1,,r,1.g lima n1 t}xt fto1f
motion to .racate q. Judgment TIL the plea
TINT It l'a1 hccn paid was addressed 10 the
equitable ppwer Of the court. and would nut bu
granted until tile. Judgment lin l,ecn tnirly mt
overrnlctl. Mr. II. X. Wilton appeared for tho
plaintiff and MIR. E. A. Small for tho defend
ants.
AN INTERESTING DECISION FOR vEssEI-owN-
Els.
Judge Drummond yesterday delivered de.
cfs!on In tic case Of Miller ct al. r.. The Tr.,.
ceede Of tic Schooner Kate IIinchnan, whlcllwil1
he found TO be OF considerable Importance to pc:.
sous Furnishing supplies to vessels, or loa.ilng
had alcs liheis to recover for labor, materials,
Prior to this, However, a mortgage lsatl
the Office Ut tho Rcco,.cr III Chicago uudcr t',s
act of Congress-, Subsequently the supplies
etc, were furnished here In tho home port oi
the vesacl, where, by the decision Of lhv su
prcnso Court Of the United Slatcs, no lien xut
given on the schooner under tho luaritiu1c Inv
dI point OF fact, however, there waa Il Her
under the laws Of the State Of Illinois, for sp
piles or materials furnished, and the qursttor
was raiscd-tlc procccds btfng ngII,autIicIentto pa,
both cialtns-whetfcr the l!cn Of the mhrtgl,et
tic lien for supplies under the StatG lnw. Judge
Drulnruontl held tile lien OF the mortgage to b.