The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-11-09
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
WAsarsGros, ID. q, Nov. =, 1877.

The following cases were heard to-day
NO. 10 Clark VS., United states-Appoal from tho
Court Of CiaimA-Tnis was an action TO enforce an
oral agreement made between the Quartermaster's
Department and the appellant by which his steamer
Belle was TO be employed by the government u found
10 Do suitable after trial While making trial trip
the steamer was wrecked ana became total loss II
appeared on the trial that the plaintiff had obtained
the vessel from the Confederate States pay for
supplies furnished that government and that the
contract made for the use OF the craft by our
government was not IN writing. The defence
was therefore. that the claimant had no valid
titie and that II he had. his contract was void be-
cause not in writing. The judgment sustained the
fixed In which the contract should 'pe reduced 10
wrling, and as It Was tral trip on which the ship
was lost the Court erred in s decision also that as
the Confederate States was do iacto government,
could convey valid tito and tho claimant obtained
one. Enocn ToItcn for claimant; solicitor General
Phillips for the government.
No. 81 Beccher, exocutrix, va wetherby ct al
Error TO the Circuit Court for the District Of Wis
consin.-Lhis was an action Of replcvn TO recover
1000. 900 feet OF pine logs taken by the de-
tendants IN shawano county, Via, OF the alleged
value OF $4,000. Both parties claimed title 70 the
LAND by patcnts-he paiDtin from the United states
and the defendant from tho State of Wisconsin. On
she trial tho Court held that IN subdivision Of lands
between the government and the STATE made in 1854,
the ands In question became by virtue oil The compact
entered into Inc property OF the State. and that there
fore, The patents from the government not good
IS against those OF tho State Tho question here Is
whether the lands passed. 10 the State by the terms
OF tho subdivision US claimed by tho defendants and
hold below, and on this point there general discus
sien Of the public acts In pursuance OF which was
Y. W.
Fisher and Barber tor defendants.
No 81 Aovius, survivor, Va Arthur-Error to the
Circuit Court the Southern District OF New York.
The original plaintiff, between August and December,
1872, imported vi New York vanished skins, upon
which the defendant as Collector oil tho port exacted
duty at the rate OF ninety cent OF thrty-ive per
cent nd vaorem under Inc acts OF 1872 which I'm
posed duty At thirty live per cont on patent and
enamelled leather or skns and also under the tariff
act Of 1874 which allowed per cent reduction OF
duties all leather otherwise provided for. The
plaintiff claimed the importati0ns were otherwise
provided for by tho first section OF tho act OF 1872
which posed duty AZ the rate OF twenty cont I'd
vaorem ION upper leather OF all kinds ana skins
provided Tor and repealed tho provisions Of tho acts
oil 1872 upon japan ned patent enamoed leather
skins under which tho duty assessed, they bong
finished SKINS" and not being otherwise provided
for IA the act Of 1872 The Court sustained tho Col
lcctor and tho question whether In the act Of 1872
thcro repeal OF the acts OF 1912, relative 10
patent and cnameod leather or skins Edward Hartlo
for plaintiff In error; Solicitor General Philips for
Collector
No. 49, Bloomsten Va Snecd, colIccsor-Appcal
from the Supreme Court of Tonnessec-rhs was
proceeding by mandamus to compel tho collector
10 receive IN yment OF APPELLANTS taxcs what
known as tho ''ncw issue OF the Bank OF Tennessee -
or notes issued alter May, 1861, when the State had
law OF the State, the writ would not lie IN the CASE
and that tho State could not be sued also, that by
express legislation the now issue could not be re-
ceived for taxes Tho Court below sustained she col
lector. ana II IS here contendcd that the Legislation
SGT up was an unconstitutional attempt 10 destroy tho
notehoiders' remedy ny mandamus against the col
lector, and further that II WINS erroneous in the do
cson TO mold that the contract between the bank and
the holder oil the new issue Is not protected by tho
iodcrai constitution, that this had been
vaidly repudiaed by tho restored State government
H. n. Smith Tor appellant; }. Is. Heisksl, Attorney
General Of Tennessee, for appellee.