The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-06-14


nal the pAnper and the diseased foreigner landing
within their borders ALL IL Is limited 10 such
laws us are absolutely necessary for that purpose ana
this mere police regulation cannot extend so lar as 70
prevent or obstruct Other classes OF from the
right to hold personal and commercial intercourse with
the people OF the United States The statute OF CALI
iornia this respect far beyond the necessity
IN which the right is founded, II II exists at all and in
vades the right OF Congress TO regulate commerce with
foreign nations and Is therefore void Rejected Mr..
Justice Miller delivered the opinion
LETTERS rKsrAMEST~Ry-rHEy ARE NOT EVIDENCE or
THE DECEASED.
No o. Mutual Benefit Life Insurancs Company vs..
Hattie b. Tisdale-Error TO the Circuit Court tor the
District OF lowa-This action was brought upon pol
Icy OF insurance issued 10 Mrs Tisdae upon the life OF
her husband. Evidence given tending show the
death OF Mr. Tisdsle The Gath OF september. 1866
This evidence consisted chiefly in the sudden and mys
ferrous disappearance OF Dir. Tisdale, under circum
stances making probable his death by violence Evil
dence was gwen by the defendant tending show that
he had been seen alive months after the date OF
his supposed death. To sustain her the plaintiff
offered In evidence letters of administration upon the
estate OF her husband, issued to her by the County
Court Of Dubuque county. Iowa The objection
overruled and the letters were read in evidence, TO
the Judge below, is, whether Edgar Tsdaic dead
ut the time OF issuing the letters OF administration II
is incumbent on mo plaintiff TO prove that fact She
has shown evidence that fact letters OF admins
tration issued TO her administrator by the probate
judge II is the duty OF the Court instruct you that
this makes prima iacic for the plaintiff and
changes the burden OF proof from tue plaintiff TO the
defendant without contradictory evidence these the
letters OF ADMINISTRATOR give the plaintiff the right
ant excepted In action brought not as admin
Istrator, but In an individual character
individual debt, where tho right OF action depends
upon the death Of THIRD party--to VII, insurance
upon his liie-do letters OF Observation-Disclosures the
late OF such person. issued by The proper probate court
afford legal evidence OF mis- dcath2 This is the ques
ton We are called upon to decide. II is presented
simply, and is the only question IN the case. In
elaborate opinion tho Court decide that in q suit
brought by executor administrator the letters
tcstamentay admissible In evidence and conclu
sivc OF his right TO But between sran
I'm
death OF the decodent So, this fan action by
wife upon policy Of insurance on the husbands
life in her invor lettcrs oil administration not evil
dencc Of the husbands death. Reversed Mr. Justice
Hunt delivered the opinion.
JuRIsDlcTlox-Tng REMOVAL cAusEs-suIr TO ANSUL
wILL-MRs. GAINES CASE
No 1O4. Myra Clark Gaines Joseph Fricntes and
othcisIn tho Supreme Court OF the State OF
Louisana.-This is action in form TO annul the
alleged will OF Daniel Clark, the father OF the appel
LIANT dated the 18th ofyuly 1919 and to rocall the
decree Of the Court BY which II probated. IL was
brought in the Second District Court for the parish OF
Orleans, which, under the laws OF louisiana Is in
vested with Jurisdiction over tho estates OF deceased
persons and OF appointments necessary In the course
OF their administration. The petition forth that
the 18th Of January, 1855. tho appellant applied to
that Court for the probate OF the alleged Will and that
by decree of tho Supreme Court OF the State, this
alleged will was recognized the last will and tcsta
nent Of tho said Daniel Clark and ordered TO be
recorded and executed such; that this decree of
probate obtained parto and by its terms
authorized any al any time who might desire to
do so 70 contest the ail and ITS probate IN direct
action, or as means OF defence by way OF answer or
exception, whenever the viii should be set up as
imminent Of title; that the appellant subsequently
the Circuit Court OF the United States to recover
sundry tracts OF land and properties OF great value
situated in the parish Of Orleans and elsewhere in
which they interested, setting up the alleged will
probaled imminent Of title and claiming under
the as instituted heir Ct the esator, and that
the petitioners unable the validity OF the
alleged will SO long as the decree OF probate remains
unrecalled The petitioners then proceed forth
the grounds upon which they ask for revocation Of
in xAftl n nf
these being the alsty and insufciency
of the testimony upon which the will admitted TO
probate and tho status OF the appellant incapacatng
her TO inherit take by last will from the deccdcnI
citation having been issued upon the petition and
served upon the appellant she applied IN proper FORM
with tender OF the necessary bond, for removal OF
the cause to the Circuit Court OF the United States for
the district OF Louisiana, under the twelfth section Of
The Judiciary act Of 1885, the ground that she
a.citizcn OF New York and the petitioners cit-
OF Louisiana. The Court denied the application
for the alleged reason that as the appellant had made
to the settlement Of Carks succession by applying
Tor the probate Of the will, she could not avoid
aside ana annu the order Of probate which she had
obtained. The Court however, went on to say in Its
opinion, that the federal court could not take Iuris
dicton OF controversy having for its object
the annumcnt OF decree probating will
The appellant then applied for removal
OF the action under tho act OF March q 1867,
the ground that from prejudice aud local influence
she would DO able obtain justice in the State
court accompanying tho application with the affidavit
also Denied the Court resting its decision the
alleged ground that the federal tribunal could take
jurisdiction or the subject matter OF the controversy.
Other parties having interviewed the applications
renewed and again denied An then filed
BY The appellant denying generally tho allegations Of
lnterposing a plea OF prescription. Subsequently a
further plea filed TO the effect that the several mat
tiers alleged TO tho status OF the appellant had been
subject Of judicial inquiry the federal court and
been there adjudged in her favor. Upon hearing a
decree was entered annuing the will and revokng the
Surname Gpur
affirmed this decree the appealed TO this Court
In the view take OF tho applications OF the appellant
10 tho to the federal court other ques
tion than the one raised upon that application
open for our consideration. II the application should
have been granted the subsequent proceedings
were without validity, and no useful purpose
would be obtained by an examination OF
the merits Of the defence upon the superstition that tho
State court rghtfuly retained its original Jurisdiction
On these facts the Court decide follows In
where the judicial power Of the United States be
applied only because they involve controversies be-
citizens OF different States II rests with Congress
determine ut Whit time the power be invoked and
upon what conditions; whether originally in tho federal
after brought In the State and In the
latter case at what stage OF the proceedings whether
before issue trial by removal TO federal court,
after Judgment on appeal upon writ OF As the
constitution imposes no limitation upon tho class or
involving controversies between citizens OF DIFF
ercnt States to which the judicial power Of the United
States may be extended, Congress may provide for
bringing at the option OF either Of the parties all such
controversies within tho jurisdiction Of the federal u
dietary. The act OF Congress of March 2,
1867, in authorizing and requiring the removal
to the Circuit Court OF the United states
of suit pending or aiterward brought in any State
court involving controversy between citizen OF a
State where the suit Is brought and q citizen OF
other State thereby invests the Circuit Court with u
rsdicton to pass upon and determine the controversy
when the removal made though that court could not
have taken original cognizancc OF the suit 10
annul will imminent Of title and to restrain the
enforcement OF decree admitting IL 10 probate Is.
essential particulars, suit IN equity, and II by the law
obtaining in State, customary or statutory, such
SUIT be maintained in Of its courts, whatever
designation that court may bear may be maintained
by original process the Circuit Court OF the Uniled
States II the parties are citizens OF different States.
Reversed. Mr.. Justice Field delivered the opinion.
PROCEEDS CoyFIscATED PROPERTY
WHEN CONTROL or TIM
No. u. Thomas A. Osborn, James s. Emery and
James L. Mcdowell plaintiffs in error, VS. The United
States In 10 the Circuit Court for the District OF
Kansas-Tho material questions presented in this
for determination relate First to the effect OF
tho Presidents pardon upon the rights Of tho petit
toner TO tho proceeds OF his property connscatcd by
the OF the District Court and, second, 10 tho
power OF the Court compel restitution 10 its registry
OF moneys illegally received by its former officers.
In May, 1868, the District Court OF Kansas
decrecd tho condemnation and forfeiture to
tho United States OF the several bonds
and described the information fled bv