Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-02-03
u. S. SUPREME COURT.
DENVER II RIO GRANDE RAILROAD.


WASHINGTON, Feb. "A decision was rem
dered in the United States supreme court, this
afternoon, in the case of the Denver & Rio
Grande railroad company upon the petition
asked for by the Denver i Rio Grande COM
pany, upon the or und that the United States
circuit court for the district of Colorado had
dsregarded the mandate of this court in its
decision of points at issue. The last term of
this court, however, denies the petition for
maudamus on the ground that to the sub
staatial matters complained OF by the Denver
company the circuit court was at liberty to cx-
ercisc its judicial discretion, and that in such
case the remedy for errors committed was by
appeal and not by mandamus. The court, how
ever declines to express any opinion to
whether the DEGREES of July, 1879, and Janu-
airy, 1880, contain errors to the prejudice of
either party, but as the right of the Denver
company will cease under provisions of the act
of Congress in 1882 to portions of its road
then unfinished, this court considers it as its
duty to afford the parties an early and final
determi aation of their controversy, upon the
merits. 1t therefore announces that upon the
perfection of the appeals. upon fling tran
script, it will hear a motion to advance the
cause for consideration at the present term.
Justices Field, Bradley and Swayne dissent
cd from the opinion of the court, but as the
cause will soon come up for Gnal hearing they
IclEalucu iIOui CSDiSSSlls, any OptHiuu VI Tue
details of the litigation.
ADMITTED.
Samuel Lowry, colored, was admitted to
practice on motion of Mrs. Belva A. Lock
wood.
MILITARY ACTS.
No. 76-Ncal Dow, plaintiff In error, vs.
Bradish johnson, in error to the Circuit court
of the United States for the district of Maine
This is an appeal from the judgment of the cir
cult court awarding to defendant in error the
sum of 81. 159 in satisfaction of Judgment OBJ
tanned by him against Dow in the sixth district
court of New Orleans. On the 9th of April
1868, at the outbreak Of the late war, Johnson
was the owner of a plantation the Mis-
sissippi river, forty-three miles above New
Orleans. In 1862, after the capture of
New Orleans by federal troops, certain property
OF johnson, including twenty-five hogsheads
of sugar and some table silver was taken from
his plantation for use of the United States
army, by federal soldiers, acting under orders
of Brigadier General Neal Dow, the present
plaintiff in error. johnson brought suit in
the State court to recover the value of the con-
fscatcd property. Gen. Dow did not appear
to answer and jud sment went against him by
default. johnson then brought suit in the
United States court for the district of Maine tC
recover the amount of his judgment with costs
In this suit he was successful, wherein Gen.
Dow brought the case here on a writ of error.
This court holds that an officer soldier OF
the army of the United States, while in the
service during the late wsr in country which
acknowledged the authority of the con-
federate government, that is in the enc.
my's country, wasn't liable to civil action in
the courts of that country for injuries result
ing from acts of war ordered by him in his
military charac or, nor can he be called upon
to Justify or explain his military conduct in a
civil tribunal upon any allegation OF
the injured party; that if the
acts complained of were not justified
by the necessities of war, a federal officer il
an an enemys country is amenahle only tc
his own government and to its laws admins
tered by its authority. resident of the
enemy's country where property is taken by
order of federal officer must appeal to The
military commander, or if the war is over, te