, 1877-10-23


! Warrington. u. e.. Int. "A case from
Indiana was .cvidesl s,y the supreme Court to-
day. It turned ut',It tlfe question whether
Ih1nIas T. Hendricks, as counsel Ia tho ease
bciow. isd t,:rn guilty Of such Irregularities In
clal,vcry rrtctice ~ vitiatc,i the decrec. 1ha
Court found m appearance bY hin in thu first
Instance - erunscI fur the Company, anu subse-
qucht1y for the Trustees Of the Company tho
Loutsyillc. New Albany + Cht:ago Railway
Company. The foreclosure su!t did not prcscnt
auy impEopcr or questionable prart!cc, and tho
Court affirmed the decree. Justice Field deliv-
cred the opinion.
RAILROAD LIABILITY.
Pratt. cte.. -. The Ora4nl Trunk Railway of
Cau'lda. errur to the Circuit Court Of the East
crn District Vt Michigan. THIS was an actiun to
1ceuvcr of the Company damages for violation
u It's duty In respect u. property ship1uai 'su5u
Liverpool to st. Louis, and carried uvef Its rttd
| from Montreal to DetrIlt. Tie guods wers
storcd " the COMPANY upon thefr arrival Ut
stsoycd ty fire the next night. THE question
wus whether this was goo1 delivery to tito
eafrier, as ,c'aIued by The defendant. The
allows xoods to tc deposited tn such q
way without nutice, tue ucpos.t Of tho goods
smou,ta to notice. aud II i delivery; tc.nco
tllc succeeding r,ud vas In ct.Ar9u Ut thy pruI-
trtr, and defendant WIS entitled to Judgment
in Ill. iavur. Affirmed. 3ustIce Hunt delivered
LOUISIANA TAX CASE.
| McAfiltcn ". Anderson, ErrUr to the Supreme
Court OF Loulsiaut4, In tAts Case II le held that
tho constitutional provision thH. ao Stale shall
deprive ahy person Of lite, liberty, or prupcrsy.
dGi &; ~? sae @ st pe:en xe s1ns Il s ;a1 M
asscsacd ngalIst hln,. nur does It require that
taxes thall bc collected by a judicial pro<cc.1.
!nE: also that = statuic which gi'ess
hare the validity Of tax lcc1drd ty i court u4
Justice nfIort!s process By law, notwithstanding
requires ths Ra.ty TO- gss security tn sa'1"ss
ticc Miller delivered tic optEtun.
HEAL ESTATE TRANSFER
The New Orleans Caua1 aild Banking COM
pany -: Montgomery Ct d., apteat from tho
Circuit Court 1or the Southern district If Nils
slAsppi. In ts case it ir dectLu,l that wAerr q
deed III trust refers su lands In curtain ran.c,
, and It appears subsequently that tho nufnoer
Wa wrong one, md tn lftu meantime a'@tlvr
lcca Of trust Is gtvth on tue sumo property
I | under the srEht description, court of equity
MIL not reform tho former 1ce.l by correcting.
r tho urkcripttou, and nakc It n llsst !ien o!1
tl,u property notwithstanding tho other Icctl,
and Tits is beca.,se te grantcrs oI tle later
deed, harini no Ilotcc u my alleged nitssako
], In the earlier one, cannot be deprived u tho
llch eryule III their fasor without violation u
. the plaittctt principles NJ feas0n. lukftc, ati
: Law. i!sycrtel. jusas.a Swuyne dtlisr1cl ths
opinion.
! HAtLEOAn-D0En Cash.
:. Hatch "a. CuddtnEtt,n, error ~ tho CtrC3tlt
!. | Court for tho southern DtstTlct of Scw York.
| The question In this ease was whether TIT
= rrcr!ient of tho M,nnesota tS Pacific llallwal
Company was authorized by tic Cuinpany tt
sell Or hypothecatc Grst-ulortEagc bonda OF tic
Company for sue, sum 1T sums as llt
r, might thtuk for It's Interests, AMI TO borrup
- tl.us,ey I'll the Company's behalf It such rates
II whether. therefore. bis disposition. Ut ccstal,
t tlo,,tis to Cotldtnston bound thu Company. Tht
!. CURT say 1t woulA 10 difficult to dec villa
i. | words would have hcen more c0tnprcheneiy
for the Erant OF power claimed than those Used
!, at,ti At1lr, ihe dcG41un made h!oN in Ills f4yur
t. | Justice otrouG delivered tho opuun.