, 1880-11-16

WASHINGTON, y. C., Nov. 15.-Tllo follow
Ing Supreme Court decisions arc an1l0unce,l:
NJ. ~. Lawrence q. Graham and j. D..
Scott, appellants. rs. In Crosse Il Milwaukee
Railroad COmllny ct nj. Appeal from tho
Circuit Court Ut thu United Statcs for tic
Eastern District If Wisconsin,, Tho contro-
yersy III this cise relates t0 the right of
Graham allll Scott, who wera cnnplatnants
below, to subject 10 tho satisfaction If tho
judg,nclltnltl by them nEnlnst tho In
Crnsso l. Milwaukee, Railroad Company GER
tain land I'll tic City uf Milwaukee, which
formerly belonged to the Kai!rbnd Company,
but which tint Company, before tho contrac.
tim Of thu debt for which appellants recoy-
cred Judgment, transferred to ono
Clarlcs u. Nass for consideration
OF s.n,5,000. Tile officers Of tho Company who
tta,k Il lending part In Negotiating tho sale to
NasIi nro c!largetl by eon,p!afnants with
having; been tntercsie, III tho purchase mil
with having furnished 10 Nash tho means uf
making It. rho principal question In tho
cuse Ii wlletalor tho salo to Nash, made be.
fore tlsa Railroad Company becanlo indebted
10 eompIniMants, call bB SGT ;lytde, even
although II WIS nla.lc for Tie ,tso ad benefit
of tile officers rcferrclt 10, fl order that tho
land III controversy may bD sold to satisfy
complaiMants' execution. This Court holds
that II Is II wcl-sctttch rule of inv flint II MI
individual, being solvent ut thu time, anil
without any intent to dctratld the creditors,
llsposrs Of Ills property for adequate coil.
sitlGrnti0n, or even makes II voluntary
conveyance Of 1t, subsequent crcditnrs
cannot question tho transaction, but 1t Is coil
tended III this cuse TINT tho 1taliroaa Company
was defrnutled OF tho land In controversy,
mid TINT !nas'auch ns tho Company Itself had
the right to instiutta proceedings for tho re.
execution rredltors Vi tho Company aso
have TINT right. When this question first
camo up Iii England 1t was held tint tlle
dsbin,r,s Gwn rlglit wits merely tug right to
GrA,!tee, all tint # l,u lid mt sco Ill t. IT.
stEtnt8 such proceeding his ere,lftur hail no
such prlvlty with tho transaction us to et1-
nbla lin! tu obtain relief. even tho1gl. the
supposed ri.l,t. III uccortluncu with tic pr1I-
cIpio titus established tlIls Court holds tint
subsequent creditors Ganll0t question n vol
untnry, 0r. fraudulent disposition OF pr0porty
ffand asainst tlio,i. Tic tlccrcc Of tho low.
CT Court Is affirmed. with costs.
SUITS TO RECOVER.
No. IL. United States, p3aIntiff In error, ys.
i!ael ll9,El, @ y n. u error to tho Circuit
i. brought by tho United Suites aR,.inst tIis
honttslnctl OF isucs l!ougl'. lnternal.II .IItevenne
Collector, 10 recover tho amount due from,
Hugh tn tho unttesl Statcs D, account OF
tle t., Slo Of rGys1'.'g stataEs. Fo Judgment
No. Il. :Innns Hull, palntlif il, error,vs. the
State ul WSso'.sln. ". III eGMr M to tho s',pren,e
DrauBht by Hall IL recover fruh! tIle State of
Wlsso1lsin sa,Ns1 ~ compensation tor one
theological nnd Agricultural Survey. Tip
suit i based ol! 2 contract with tho Statc for
six years' seryicg M'a:lo by TUG Governor
insnT. The State refused 10 iay Hall for
bis lust years svrylco on tho ground tlat tho
law nutlur Which tlsa CONTRACT was nl,luu Ind
been repealed. This CDnrs l,oltis tint tho
cotraet between tho State, md Hall wns
nlUthur; TINT HILL was not III otllcer OF tho
Sia.e. rell!oyahIu ut Will, md TINT tho net of
tic Legislature WAS unc0llatittltlOnnl and
void, III tint It Impaired tho obligation, Of
contract Thu Judgment Ut the lower Conrt
n,a,,dcd for further proceedings.