The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1878-11-21
LEGAL.
Decisions of the United States Supreme
Court.

| occasions OF the United States Supreme
Court.
The following Supreme Court de-
clslons are announced:
No. "a. Thomas Smell, ct al, plaintiffs
III error, VS.. the Atlantic Fire and
Marine Insurance Company, Providence,
Il. |. Appeal from the Circuit Court of
the United States for the Northern Dis
trlct OF Illinois. Decree of the court
below reversed, with costs, and cause re-
handed, with directions to enter the
decree III conformity with the opinion
OF this court. This action was instituted
to reform a certain policy of insurance
concerning property of plaintiffs, so as
to make it correspond with an agree
ment entered into previous to the issue
OF the policy, Plaintiffs allege a mis-
understanding as to the interest intend
ed to be insured; that Keith, one of the
firm, intended to procure insurance on
the whole interest of the firm in the
property, and that by the terms of the
policy only Keith's individual interest
was covered. The fundamental inquiry
is, whether Smell, Taylor & Co. are en-
titled to have the policy reformed as to
cover it's interest. The court holds that
upon the evidence complainants are en-
titled to have the policy so reformed as
to correspond with the original agree
ment
No. |. Washington Ford, plaintiff in
error, VS.. James Surget. Error to Su-
preme Court of Mississippi. Judgment
affirmed with costs. The question in
this case is whether the owner of cot
ton burned by James Surget under or
ders from the Southern military au-
thorltles can recover from said defend
ant the value of the cotton so destroyed.
After trial before jury the verdict was
returned for defendant. Upon error to
the Supreme Court of Mississippi that
Judgment was affirmed, and from that
judgment appeal was taken to the SUI
preme Court. The court holds that the
destruction Of the cotton under the or
ders OF the insurrectionary military au-
thorities in order to prevent it from
falling into the hands of the Federal
army was, under the circumstances, an
act Of war, for which the person execut-
ing such military orders was relieved
from civil responsibility. ...
No. 4. Samuel G. Cooke, plaintiff in
error, VS.. The Commonwealth of Penn
sylvania. In error to the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania. Defendant in
the cause refused to pay tax for which
he was liable under the laws of Pennsyl-
vania for selling imported goods at auc-
ton in the original packages, and for
account of the importers. In the suit
in which Judgment was rendered against
him in the Supreme Court of Pennsyl-
vania he defended himself on the ground
that the statutes authorizing the tax
were void, because forbidden by Secs.
s and 10, Art. 2, constitution of the
United States. The court sustains this
view, holding that the State law which
imposes the tax is void both as laying a
tax on imports and as a regulation of
commerce, forbidden by the constitu-
ton of the United States. The iudg-
ment of the Supreme Court of Pennsyl-
vanla is, therefore, reversed, and the
case remanded to that court for further
proceedings.
No. A. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
Company, plaintiffs in error, VS.. Oden
Bowie. In error to the Supreme Court
Of the District Of Columbia. Judgment
affirmed with costs by a divided count.
This cause presents Instructions as to
what constitutes the delivery of freight
to common carriers, so as to charge the
latter with the loss. The particular
freight in this instance was two horses,
among which was the racing mare Aus
tralia, the property of Gov. Bowie, of
Maryland, which was injured by being
put upon the cars, and for which he re-
covered below $4,000.