New-York tribune., 1878-12-03

So section The Court hold: that me counts @ Of the
tanned &C. & or%si NINA
sos s q s''s me % tse
% ssn.smsHs % he %ssass ss.sS,Ssd
double the vsIse Of the goods BY
s2 designed 70 laaemny % the Goyernpsnt
selves declared ID the ACT Of 1885, must have been
Rsn0fa the later for the .upDss PROVISION. mat
ssSns section s the earlier and would have
hos that no suits be maintained by force OF
the enactment Of the Act Of 1866 The Judgment the
lower Court is affirmed Justice Strong delivered the
No si-whiam 7. earats appellant sgt. Nicholas SET
e District California This was a suit brought by selbert
San a &c to SS aud SET ass S a" mn
OF lower court affirmed with costs Justice strong
No Iol-Robert Erwin, appellant sgt the United ststes
c 10 eoSs a was sss s ~ edton ~ 5e 2 S1s bg
the United srss. military sateo,tes at savannah IN 1862
states passed with his other assets TO his assignee in bank
hrmed.-Justice Field delivered the opinion
edecso Sh1 40 Meth plaintiff in error against % , A a. csr X
ses iesse The PRINCIPAL question In this cause H.
ment Of depreca1ed notes the Bank Ten.
esee ~ as bound Ite 70 by SECTION ~ OF the charter
aiae aIase mat contract as 20 the notes issued
frSynf by and It's
et sS % S s 6ISs o.
Justice &cr holds o l%a se Sn % Ssofy has
sSs sis within ne same ssosspaS,l limits oy. and
been than poe D eIsns as n
ganzed State q om the day ois amssion into
is no foundation for the theory which such sep
10 make their legislation while ia rebellion, void
since the resoraos ThrSs e i ne Violence IN this
case TO prove that the issue the Bank Of Tennessee
cior insurgents or IN Violation Of the cohsiailon and
nSr % o be 1sd states and that c0GsequeRy the con- on
notes OF the Bank Of Tennessee payment OF taxes k
the Federal Constitution. The Judgment q Tho supreme
% T hehnsSe G Is therefore rey,red ana the cause ne re
Mr. Jusco bradley delivered dissenting opinion,
States were lawful Governments Tho Chief Justice also de
the ~ tho or
ia as the issue Of bank not il coneernod was an auth
Sognzant of the facts that the n question: ter May
not entitled to constitutional protection
assignee IN ar T. 10 TGSa Ss n o d 5 ag % Gsd
for the Northern District OF OhoJudgment affirmed with
mo- T m Jane B kesner appellant agt Daniel Irgg as;
] S M oR , as Creg o GGart er eso asa
with costs Justice swayne delivered tie opinion.
satcs-A"pca from the Court Of caims JadeneaT rmsd
NO as@PG. m and CHARLESTON Railroad Company
T5 I a To- m IN eTo 6 ag T. GS % aTnsp, IN du e.
lion IN t cause is whether the plaintiffs IN error can be
purcnances IN accordance General
ASSEMBLY OF Tennesee when by their original charters they
we've yaT1Onsly exempted from taxation Decree ahrmed
with costs Tie Chief Justice delivered the opinion.
against Robert p Peppr In 70 she rcuit CUurt Of the
United States the District OF Judgment al
hrmed with cost and interest the Chief Justice delivered the
opinion.
80 9l9w. X Ingersoi assignee etc appellant against
Mary Bourne Appeal from the Circuit Court OF the United
cI the Southern District OF MssissppL-Appea dis
missed with cost the Chief Justica delivered the opinion
No. IA The CITY Of Little Roc plaintiff IN error against
the Merchants National Bank OF Little Rock
In no Circuit Court OF The United states FOR the
Eastern District OF Arkansas.
submitted on printed arguments by W. NJ Rose for the
plautn In and John Mcclure and T. D. W. Noniey, Tor
the defendant under the twentieth rule
80 NI.-lhe American Elpgrant gOmpanv. appellant act
the Comfy Adams Appeal from the Circuit Court Of the
Unite for the District Of Iowa Argument continued
By y H. Hubbard for TIE peant and Crank " Davis or
the appellee.