The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-06-19

the lottery IN question under subsequent statute,
passed the 10th Of octopsr 1893 This latter statute
was repealed in March. 1871. It was admitted on the
trial that the acts charged against the defendant
done under that statute aud would be legal If she stat
ute constitutional aud had not been repealed.
That required the defendant and certain other
parties associated with him, before exercising the
right claimed, 10 deposit In the Treasury OF the
State. TO the credit OF the School fund and for
educational purposes, 81 900, and annually thereafter
the same sum Tor twenty years, or SO long as they
might do business under the act and that sum had
been deposited Under previous Indictment against
the same defendant for a simiar offence tho Supreme
Court OF the had held the in question
constituted contract and that tho Repeating act was
for that reason void In that case the only matter
before the Court tho meaning OF the statute Its
constitutionaIy not called into question: On the
trial OF the the defendant relied upon that
decision OF the Court; but he was nevertheless con-
viccd aud sentenced On appeal 10 the Supreme
Court Of the State the judgment was airmed The
Court deciding the statute OF October TO- 1868, was
unconstitutional. Held that the previous adJudicatior
Of the Court upon the meaning Of the statute,ha
constituted contract between the defendant and the
State-did not estop the State from denying It's con-
stitutionahy In the present case nor conclude the
Court upon that question, although The point might
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Field delivered the opinion.
wTL-coN FEDRaArE STATE BoNDs--LIABILirY OF ExECU-
ToR INVESTMENTS THEREIN.
vs. Ann Crouch ana o,ners-ln error TO the supreme
Court oil Appeals Of the State Of Virginia. Hector
Davis died during the late civil war at Richmond Va,
leaving Will executed March IL, 1859, as f0ows:-
RICHMOND. March IL 1859
Hector Davis Of the city Of Richmond state Of yir-
s% Ii. ss ss q s. s ssa ssss
Il ss " the s'.s
Matilda and .,.s their removal sum q saoo she
the interest," The balance expended raising
said children I'll Ssy & ls s 70
stocks BY my executors and applied - aforesaid
$500 Whatever balance may p worth want given %
James ana Franklin Matthews executors to this last
As witness my hand and seal. HECTOR DAVIS.
This will admitted to probate in the Circuit
Court OF Richmond, March b. 1858, whom James alone
qual.ned as executor. The servant woman, Ann, and
her children the present plaintiffs in error, and
are known IN the pleading as Ann DAVIS, jennie Davis,
They were removed at some time TO Philadelphia, but
whether before after the death Of the testator docs
not appear though they seem to have been there dur
The estate was large consisting of real property,
slaves, bond and her stocks, small amount OF Con-
ture. All the parties interested IN tho settle
ment OF the estate resided in the Confederate
children The personal properly, exclusive OF debts
due tho estate, valued At SOL 020 February 70,
coui. Of Richmond upon bis petition therefor to
invest the cash hand belonging TO the estate In In
bearing bonds oil confederate
States of the State OF Virginia, or any other
sufficient bonds securities IN that State. Under this
order he invested during the months Of April, July
November OF that year $SS sos 81 OF Confederate
currency IN Confederate bonds. A part OF the slaves
were sold. but nearly all the remainder Of the per-
W SuuA retained during he war in the condition
it was lott by the testator at his death.
the Chancery Circuit Court OF the city OF Richmond
against tho executor by the resduary egatees looking
n
securing the payment Of their legacy. The case went
to The Court OF Appeals OF the State, and was romanded
allowed credit tor his investments in bonds OF the
Confederate States that the only question concern.
ing which the jurisdiction OF this Court invoked,
and until hna judgment in the State Court Is held
this Court 10 without jurisdiction.
The Chief Justice delivered the opinion.
pRAcrcE-ErFEcT OF suPERsEpEAs.
No. lC4O. John I. Goddard, administrator, &c. VS..
District OF Columbia This is suit ~ equity prose-
cuted by the appellant TO subject portion OF the
Us ney ~ I @ ~
States the payment OF debt In the progress Of The
cause In the court beowR receiver was appointed 70
collect from the United States part OF the moneys
payable the defendant under his contract they Tell
due and retain them to await The result OF the SUIT
Upon the hnal hearing below the bill was dismissed,
aud from that decree TINS appeal has been taken,
which operates as supersedeas When the SUPER
seaeas perfected the receiver had in his
hands about $25 600, invested IN United States bonds
which collected under the order OF the Court
and held subject TO its disposal The appellant fearing
as he alleges order is about made uirecl-
ing the receiver to pay the money IN his hands to the
defendant Notwithstanding the appeal. asks the inter.
ference his Court for his projection supersedeas
upon the appeal oil SUIT IN equity operates TO stay
the execution OF the decree appeaca FROM Whom the
appeal was taken the only execution there could DO
OF the decree below the collection OF the and
the delivery OF tie fund In Court which Is tho subject
matter the litigation TO tho defendant To that end
further order OF the COURT was asked, but such
an would be in aid OF The execution
The nps Of s to
make until The appeal disposed Of While the Court
below may make the necessary orders 10 preserve tho
iuna aud direct It's receiver 10 that extent II cannot
place the money beyond the control OF any decree that
may DO made here, Tor that would be to detcat our
jurisdiction supersedeas Is not obtained by virtue
OF any process issued by TINS Court, but follows ~
matter Of law from compliance by the appellant with
the provisions The act OF Congress in that behalf
We are not required therefore, issue any writ to
perfect the right OF party TO that which the law has
gwen him bu. If Cour below proceeding through
mistake or otherwise, TO execute us judgment or
decree hstandiDg the supersedeas, we may, un-
writ that ACTON, tor II would DO IA writ
necessary Tor the exercise Of our jurisdiction" The
precise torn OF the writ TO DO issued or relief 10 be
granted necessarily depend upon the particular
circumstances OF any case that may arise In this
ruo has been already entered aud served upon
from paying over any portion OF the lund the do
lcndant until tho further order of this Court. That
rule is IN i0rce, and we suppose no iurtheT writ
Will be necessary TO give IL elect.
The Chief Justice delivered the opinion.
LIPE NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. oy THE INSURED
!
No col The Connecticut Mutual Lie Insurance
Company, plaintiff IN error, vs.. Adam SchwenK, guar
dian Gc-ln error to the Circuit Court oil United
States for the Eastern District Of Pennsy vana.Phe
issue out OF which arose both the questions brought
here by this ior determ nation was founded
| plea that DR.. McDonoueh, the person whose HE had
been insured, older than nc had been represented
to be the application Tor the policy In that appi-
cation, made March u.s. 1857, his age stated
| slxty-two at his next birthday. Accompanying the
proofs hts death furnished to the company by
plaintiffs below was affidavit oil one Thomas Noan
that tho death occurred on the I'm OF April, 1863,
ana that the deceased was between sixty..ix ana
| seventy years oil age al that time, accord
Ing the best Judgment of the aflianL
To explain the discrepancy between the statement OF
the AFFIDAVIT and that made IN the application, the
panns offered TO prove that the age oil the deceased
was different from that stated IN the affidavit and Tor
this purpose they offered to prove by Nolan himself
that he mistaken, and that he had no knowledge
upon the subject THIS evidence the Court received,
Notwithstanding an objection by the defendants the
H.