, 1877-04-17
SUPREME COURT,

GQtC50& AE11&C& 10 1A& 1ft4Ht.
WAsn1NoToNt y. C., April lB.-1n the United
States Buprcmo Court to-day In the case Of
Noah G. Perkins vs. The Town Of South Ottasa,
ILL.,, permission vas grantcd to the counsel for
tho bondho1lcrs to fllo petition for modllca-
ton Of the last opinion Of the Court. This case
Is ons Of considerable interest, inyoly1nR the
validity OF bonds amounting to e500,000 issued
on account Of the Ottawa, 0swego j. Rock
Ntver Nallroad BY Kendall County,
Illinois, aal townships along the
line Of the road. Thcso bonds orc now
principally held III New York City, and tho road,
which extends from Batarsa to Weno,,a, ILL.,, Is
leased to tho Chicago. Burlington i Quincy
Road, upon tho condition that tho hitter shall
pay to the former for thu bonds an amount
equal to 10 per cent OF tho earnings. The Ills
tory OF tho casa Is briefly this: 4 suit was
brought In tic United Statca Clrcul. Court Tor
tue Northern District Of llltnots by tho Town Of
south Ottawa, which set up that the net OF tho
Legislature under which tho bonds Id Qucsttou
we're tasucd
NEVER rAssED THE sEsATH
Ia tho method required by thu Constitution. be-
cause the Sonata journal failed to sl,ow that tho
Ytas and mars Oil tho question OF tho passage Of
Tie bill were entered upon It. On the trial the
counsel introduced what purportcd to 10 d ccr-
u!Isd copy OF tho Senate journal, but tic plain.
NJ! 'ntcfposea certified copy Of the enrolled
o!'', stgned by tho presiding oflcora Of both
Aouses, and by the Governor attcstcd Under
the great seal Of the State, and proposed to
show further by proper deposlttons taken In tho
ease that tho Tote actually WAS taken BY yeas
ana nays, and that the Transcript Of tho scnato
Journal offered was not nude from the original
Journal at all, which was not In axlstcucc,
judgment Wna rendered
foH TUE u0NDNoLDKRs,
sn11. snu .nc t9xn % appealed to thu United stxtes
beluw waa affirmed, Chief Justice Waito driiy-
Srsng tue opinion, Ia which Justices Clifford.
nnwayne. nat. strong, and Hunt concurred. Justlccs
0feaaey. Field, Miller. an4 Davis ulsscrtcd.
vote 70 that tho second oplutpn was klstuIncd
" I'VE nealbers Of thu Court, four tIsseilti1,K,
Inc Question which aFoso to-day is Ia regard u
~ ee - aa.tsr opinion d1ycrsty ot views Exists
ttal which is 10 be had aa to tho cgilcncc to
70 intsodnreI touching tho passage of
the tlll. Tho Court to-day grsntci lcayn
IT, II tn1 &c counsel tor thu bondoldefs 10 c ctl
ttnsy assert was eascu On tbs uasutnptiou ttat
titre was no cyldcnre LII the case Uucstionn.
.e aa;hcnt'etty Of the copy Of tho Senate Jour.
LII Which was ofEcrod.
0TuKH pkQfsfoNa.
10 ~ Rfsfsys A&soctaled Hxas
sW4sHtSutoA, u, e., April lt;,--'rhu foltowino
Ies%!oha tsm we're rendered ln the Aupsciup Cuurf
~ Tag ua!tsa st.te. ". For ct AL; error to tho
new 1eIk Court Of Appeals, Thfs l. r,.n IN IN
Tntch Charles Fox, VI thu CIV Of New TnrE'
az H. n,sa ny st!ts psopcry to thu Government
ii ss dlsshatra 'ais. ef .s of shs ourpose q a4ug
T.. IT the suppression VI lis Ach.sl,ion u'
Ihs surfo3aie hcia TINT w tha 1'syGi,toni sInt;'ai
sSs .tstats, ua not o sfxs Ss rssl usr
the Will WIS void u devise Of liz land, 1t1ut hnt
ta tuat ~ novtrnIncat could taks peTsoual ~.
Ax. 1te lnstrument WIS aainlttesl to urci,ats
~, WI =, psfs9asl estate Ths Court of A.
tl,at thelc IL no question but that tIc t!n;tad
etatcs may hold real property Ii stnte WIZ.
sses nsedea for tao uss Ut the uovsrasu ent IN
Sassn1oh g. " IT, powet and that in surh casc il
,.i Mih ths oHlaels IL may 1s taksu aeainss thar
WI oy the Gosrrn,!lent IL 1he exerCise of tLa
power of eEltl1ent dotnalp, but thu power Of ihu
Sitsn ta 70 rrGu!ate tas ssnufe u fcat property
aon aud transfer aud rules 'n ot Il.
aesseht ,.sas and c1seut,, 70 which q testa.
mi.entary disposition Of It moy be exercised by
y; ms s owneFs IL held to ts uuIuubtea. lhu riglt
" TUG slate tn tt:s RESPECT fullows from tty !
soselrixnty within Its Aulits a ~ all makteFa t
osef " which Jurisdiction has uo, been expressly
Fs1y,.L' ~ ". essa5y implication transferred 10 Tie
a,ssa a,ae1M Heyesallleut. A. tho statutss u the
T., alass o1 hew York prohibit such deYscs, there
r. y ao o poWeF to n'axu tuein. TAs judgment OF
Inc Court VI Appeais l. affirmed.
c,'s,'es ef et ~. w. Dows ct w., appeal from tho
~. S.seast CHust tor ths Distr.rt ii Iowa. ThIs
.na,! "as M 4ifsmauce VI u uycrec Ia ioreclosurv
TiEMnst IN. Tug ChleaQo E Southwestern Railway,
- ~ Court holaug that wlluss the rol /. iocet.
T. tnslt ~ past Wltltna district whose Jurisdiction
n,' INVOKED mud tue mortgage euvvrs the entiro
tgtoperty. there u authority fur decree OF foru.
."sdse, u",sie UNI 10 saEd that to huid otherwise
~ h~uso s % DISASTROUS not only to thosu owptpg
" Lie mortgage.
r. pRDRR,
o,;aa ,;~i!astce Waite announced tho following
9sr: Snn.1 ~ atsount ot Tho !nsuiliclcury of tic
It ~ abpa1cn. that we shall uot ba Iii,
;s. Sopstnuu thu hsariug Of eauars ut The presrnt
d. II ,a ,a:es tl.au the l5ia Or 30th Of May. We