The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-12-31

ArufNt We UfoAy' - hOussUs>sS"o-~
Editors Of the Dispatch; Ny attention
has been called 10 two or three orticies
which have appeared recently In your pa.
per, probably suggested by some editorial
comment made by you upon the opinion
lately delivered by the Supreme Court OF
the United States In the case OF Williams q
Arrest Us. Bruify's administrator; winch
opinion was at the same time published at
Lengths In your paper.
As some misconcept,on seems 10 exist az
TO the facts OF The case, as well rs the eject
oil the decision made In the cause, and as
the writer OF one OF the articles in question
seems TO be anxious to obtain further iu-
formation upon the subject, 1t may not De
improper 10 state what The facts ana deci-
sion really weres
The only question involved In the cnuse
was the validity or invalidty Of payment
made BY a debtor during the waD OF an
ante bellum debt to {, cever appointed ~
the authority OF the Confederate States un.
der an act OF the Congress OF the Confed-
crate States, known In common parlance as
the "sPquestration act"
The Circuit Court OF Rockingham county.
in which the SUIT was pending, reOdered a
Judgment in effect affirming the validity oil
sucn a payment made under said act.
App,icatton was al once mad" ia the usual
form for writ OF error and SuferSededs 10
said judgment, which application was de'
nied by all the Judges OF the Court OF Al
pesI., upon the ground that the said judg>
ment of the Circuit Court Of Rockinghao1
,caS plainly right.
At tnis point the case rested Tor more tren
two years after The date OF the judgment OF
said Circuit Court, when IL was determined
TO prosecute a writ OF error to the Supreme
Court of the United Stxees TO obtain 8 re-
view and reversal OF the judgment. For
that purpose the record, which had been
living in the office OF TIE Court OF Appeals
with the refusal OF tue judges 70 allow
suDersefcaS endorsed thereon In the usual
form, was presented again TO the court IN
term, and tnereupen the Court OF Appeals
entered an order to the effect that the court
having maturely considered the transcript
OF the record dechued To allow writ OF
error or SuperSedeGs, upon the ground That
the Judgment OF the Court below was plainly
riqht, and on that ground alone, and luis
order being dug certified was made the
foundation OF 40 application to the supreme
Cont of the Uuited States for writ OF err
ror TO said judgment OF the Court OF APP
peals. treating said order as final ludg-
meDt.
The defendant in error appeared TO the
citation in the Supreme Court OF the Unied
States, and the cause was there fully argued !;
and the Supreme Court, treating said order
OF the Court OF Appeals OF Virginia as a
final judqmem OF the court OF last resort IN
mi. State, held that said judgment was er-
roneous and should be reversed, and d.
rected its mandate 10 said Court OF Appeals
remandIng the cause for further proceed
iDgs therein in conformity with SAID lrdy-
ment OF the Supreme Court.
When this mandate was presented to the
Court OF Appeals, and application was
MADE to it to reverse its former Judgment
IN .nformity TO the opinion and Judgment
of the Supreme Court, certain doubts were
suggested by some OF the Court as TO the
effect OF tie mandate, and argument was
had at the bar OF the Court upon all the
questions involved.
One or more OF the judges took the dis
tinct ground that the supreme Court had no
jurisdiction or control Of the judgments OF
a State court of last resort. thereby adhering
ID the former judgment OF the Court
Df Appeals to that effect in tue case
of Martin as. Hunters lessee, reported
in 4th MunfOrd, |. The other mem'
bers OF the court conceded the c0n-ti-
tutionaiiy OF the judiciary act OF lIs3.
and also that the case at bar involved Il
Federal question, which gave jurisdiction
under that act 20 the Supreme Court To re-
view, and. il need be, reverse final ludg-
meut OF the Court OF Appeals; but they
were OF opinion that in this case The
Courr OF Appeals had rendered no tn0t
but bad only refused 10 a.
to1p a writ OF error TO the inferior court,
upon the ground that the Judgment OF that
inferior court was plainly right, and that
this proceeding On il part never did
amount TO final judgment; and thai
therefore the only effect TO be given
10 the mandate was then 10 allow
an appeal, but that it was Inhibited from
doing tbs by the statutory provision re-
curing the appeal 10 he prayed and allowed
within two years from the date OF the final
Judgment of the inferior court, and bat
even il the writ of error and SuperSededS
were then granted no process could issue
thereon by the provisions. Of the same
statute (see Code OF 1878, chapter 11S,
section ID, aud for the further reason that
if such writ OF error or SuperSededS were
granted it could not take effect unless the
bond required by said statute was given.
and hat under the provisions OF the same
statute, two years having elapsed since the
rendition OF the judgment OF the inferior
court without sucn bond having been given,
tue writ OF error or SuperSededS. even II al
lowed, must under the terms OF that statute
be dismissed, and so for these technical rea-
son,, duly embodied in an order drawn for
le purpose and entereC on its records. the
Court OF Appeals declined to give effect to
said mandate.
In this state Of things the plaintiffs in err
ror being remediless, because the Circuit
Court OF Rockingham would take no step
10 reverse it, judgment until so ordered by |
the Court Of Appeals. and the Court OF APP
peas declining to do anything for the rea- |
sons above assigned, the plaintiffs in error |
lied their petition in the Supreme Court |
praying that said mandate might be con-
,trued and its judgment made efectudt in |
such manner as il might see g.; aud there |
d Don the supreme Court rendered lis deci |
sion, again affirming it, jurisdiction in the |
premises and its right to review and reverse |
he judgment OF the Court OF Appeals in |
;uch case as this. directly involving a |
Federal question, and further holding, as in |
TACT it did thirty wears ago in the case OF the |
Richmond and Fredericksburg Railroad |
Company Us. The Louisa Railroad Com.
pany. 18Th Howard. page so, that
the refa-al OF the Court OF Appeals to al
. ,,;t 81 -, ;,I /