The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-12-28
IEor the Dispatch.l

l.
tho npnropriate Jurisdiction Of mis- court.
Very truiy. JAMES G.sFIELp.
.r------------s5c.-----
tFor the Dispatch.I
Novel and Interesting Case
Gentlemen. your issue OF the 10Th
instant, in giving your Washington tele-
| cram to the effect that in the case OF the
Rank OF the Old Dominion Us. j.. 81. Nc
Weigh and William n. Mcyeigh, the SUI
nreme Court OF the United States, by Mr.
Chief-Justice Waite, bad decided that the
| record did not show that the bank bad as
serted t.any right, title; or immunity arts.
| iue under the Constitution or laws OF the
| United States" and therefore dismissed the
appeal, YOU ask the question, :. Who made
up the record?"
| Asope of the counsel for the McVeighs,
who had principal hand in that matter, 1t
has been suggested that should answer the
question, ana as the case. Is one of-unusual
interest, novelty, and Importance, perhaps
the explanation necessary may be pardoned.
The suit was upon numerous notes made
| in Alexandria by j. Fl. McVeigh Il Son, IN
April and May, 1861, endorsed Tor accom-
nodation) by William n. McTeish and dis
counted By the bank, which fell due IN July,
! August, and September, following, while
both the makers and endorsers (Who had
fed from Alexandria On the Both OF May on
the occupation Of the city by the Federal
|.troops) were in Culpeper county, va,
within the Confederate lines. The notes
were regularly protested for non-payment,
and notices OF protest IN due form left at
| the dwelling-house of the endorser, in
| Alexandria. Among other deiences made
| BY the endorser was the one upon which
the result finally turned-namely, that the
said notice TO BIN was nullity, lnasmucn
as public hostiIities existed between 1.-The
citizens of Alexandria and the citizens
OF the Confederate States 1T the time.
Upon this question, under instructions
given BY the Alexandria (State) court, the
iury found verdict for the plaintiff, which
the Court refused to set aside, and entered
Judgment thereon. William n. McVelSh
appealed to the Supreme Court OF Appears
OF Virginia, and in that court there was
wide range Of argument, involving ques-
lions of commercial law. and whether and
how that ,Iaw was modified Or affected in It's
application to the peculiar and abnormal
circumstances of the case, to which the his
tory of Jurisprudence furnished no parallel.
1t was contended for McVeigh that whether
because OF the secession OF the State
or by right of revolution he was at liberty
TO leave Alexandria, and incurred no re-
sDonsibility to the bank by so doing OF
which it could take advantage i'll that suit,
and that being lawfully on this side OF the
belligerent lines, the notices OF protest were
simply void acts as TO him, since it was by
the laws OF war alike illegal for The bank to
give or for him TO receive notice.across the
lines: and the bank could not give construc-
tive notice when it could not give actual no.
RI lin lf f,y ou nj
tv of the ordinance OF secession. but did hold
that, under the circumstances, the departure
OF McVeigh did not subject him to any liza
bility to the bank, or release it from the obli-
CATION Of giving legal notice of protest, which
It held could not be done during the war,
but might and should have been done within
a reasonable time after it's termination. 1t
therefore reversed the decision of the lower
court, and sent the case back for new trial
upon the principles it had declared. This
is the great case Of McVeigh Us. Bank OF
the Old Dominion, reported IN 26 Grat., PIP.
1888, inclusive.
When the case came on for new trial the
able and astute counsel for the bank sought
to introduce into it an element which would
give the Supreme Court OF the United States
Jurisdiction to review the final decision Of
the supreme Court Of Virginia by raising
what is Familiarity known as a "Federal
question:" and in the various forms OF four
teen separate instructions asked the Court.
directly or indirectly. to pass upon the va
l.dity OF the ordinance of secession and the
alleged constitutional and legal rights Of the
bank as a citizen of the United States to
give the notices as they were given.
The great effort on our side was to exclude
all such questions from the case; and both
sides clearly ioreSaw that the ultimate fate
Of the case would probably depend upon
that struggle; for if the Supreme Court OF
the United States once assumed Jurisdiction
to decide the case uDon its merits, the cur
rent of its decisions OF questions growing
out Of the late war had been such as almost
TO foreshadow what would be its decision in
this case. Therefore it was that We insisted
that all the court below had to do was to
try the case as directed by the iudg-
ment of the Court OF Appeals, as re-
ported in 20 Grattan. and that it had
nothing to do with the alleged Federal
questions attempted to be introduced.
This contention succeeded, and the case
being tried upon the simple question
whether the bank had given due notice OF
protest to the endorser after the war, it was
decided by the Jury, under instructions
from the court, that such notice had not
been given, and verdict was there
fore rendered for the defendant, upon
which Judgment was entered in his fa-
yor. The bank then appealed to the
Supreme Court OF Appeals Of Virginia.
When the case came on, one OF the Judges
(Bouldin), who had decided the case origi-
nally IN McYeigh's favor, had died, and as
the court had been divided Ghree to two),
there were then two Judges living who had
concurred in the opinionand Judgment OF
the court (Anderson and Staples) and two
(Moncure aud Chri>tIan) who had dissent
ed; and rs Judge Burks, the successor Of
Judge Bouidln, Was new to the case,
q great effort was made by the indefatiga-
the whole case for discussion and deci-
to review and reverse its former decision.
Here, again, of course, we insisted upon
holding the ground already gained, and.
declining to discuss the original merits OF
the case, stood stGutly upon the former de-
cision OF the Court, which, having been
rendered by constitutional majority OF a
full court, we ,contended, had sett'ed tne
law. Of the case. This contention hnaily
prevailed, but only by the predonllnatlng
voice of the excellent new Judge.
In an able opinion, his HonorJudge Ander-
son explained and fortified bis former opln-
ion, in which Judge Staples had concurred,
while the venerable president lMoncure),
VINO had delivered an elaborate and eXhaus-
tive contrary opinion Tin which Judge
Christian had concurredb adhered, with
Judge Christian, to that opinion; and 1t was
by the concurrence Of Judge Burks with
Anderson and Staples that the final iudg-
r0ent OF the court vas rendered in favor Of