The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1880-12-30

& Arnert against Jason n. Brufy, admins /
traitor, the practical effect of which, it would |
appear, will be to establish the authority OF
that court to ignore the judicial authority OF
any State as such, to issue Its mandate revers-
ing the decision OF any inferior court, without
acting through the States superior courts,
and to execute its processes directly on the
premises by its own marshals. The case was
a suit in the Circuit Court of Rockingham
county, Va. against Geo. W. Rruffy's estate
to recover the value of goods sold by the
plaintiffs, who are Pennsylvanians, In
March. 1861. The administrator pleaded
the act of the Confederate government Sc
frustrating debts to alien enemies, and
that under that act the amount claimed
had been paid over TO the receiver ap-
pointed under the law. This payment, 1t
was held, discharged the debt. The Rock
ingham Court admitted the plea as valid.
giving Judgment for the defendant. and the
Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia re-
fused TO reopen the case, holding the 1udg-
ment of the court below to be ''plainly
right" The case was taken on writ OF er-
ror to the Supreme Court OF the United
States, which directed the action OF the Vir-
ginia Appeals Court to be reversed and the
case to be heard before it. To this mandate
the V rgnia Supreme Court OF Appeals re-
piled, declining to take action on grounds
| mainly technical, such as that its action
had been final in the premises. and that
the Virginia statutes expressly prohibited
the issue of process on appeal, writ or error
or supersed6as after certain interval OF time
had elapsed, which was the case in this in
stance. The Supreme Court of the United
States has now decided, Justice Field delv-
ering the opinion, that it was the duty OF
the Virginia Appeals Court to have re-
opened the case, and if it ha done SO 1t
would have seen reason to reverse the de-
csion of the court below. So long as that
decision of the court below remains unre-
versed it will be authority to all the inferior
courts of Virginia that the condscatien OF
debts due to loyal citizens under an act OF
the Confederate government is valid pro-
ceeding. It is, therefore, the duty OF the
! Supreme Court of the United States to re-
view the case, and, in order to relieve the
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals from
the embarrassment of acting in defiance Of
a Virginia statute. it decides TO withdraw
its mandates to that court and to issue an-
other mandate directly to the inferior court
of Rockingham, requiring that court to re-
| linda md criu ind In
favor of the plaintiff for the amount de-
cided to represent the claim upon an agreed
statement of facts. with interest from ma
turity, except for the time of actual war
the Judgment to be paid by Bruffy's admin.
istrator in like manner as other claims
against his estate. The decision seems tt
cover the point that in federal cases the
Supreme Court has the right to ignore the
action of State courts entirely to pass
them by and deal with the facts presented
as if it had original as well as final jurisdic
ton in the premises. This synopsis OF the
opinion of the Supreme Court of the
United States is furnished. substantially
by the Baltimore Sun.
The decision may have the effect to com
plcate matters issuing out of the propert,
which belonged to the defendant, ant
which was liable for The debt which ha
thus been passed upon. The bulk Of th'
property of Mr.. Bruffy, decd, consisted
large three-story brick building, appro
priated to business and dwelling. l
passed from the heirs of deceased by sale
to other parties, and is now owned. we be
lieve, by MIR. Abner Shacklett, who co
ducts a hardware store, in the bushes
part of it. We think, however, he is no
the direct purchaser from the administra
tor, but the funds arising from the origina
sale have no doubt been distributed among
the heirs, the administrator has gon
through a court of bankruptcy since then
and the whole loss may fall upon the pres
ent possessor of the property or the per
son from whom he purchased. Whethe
this is the exact state of the case or not
we will not positively assert; but that Sc
rious complications will arise out OF the
determination of the United States Suprem
Court, we have no doubt.
This decision implies even wider scoop
of jurisdiction than is announced in tn
case to which it directly applies. 1t is
broad declaration that the rights OF foreigl
creditors must be respected, and that tn
plea of poverty, a condition brought on b!
the voluntary act of the people OF State
cannot be put in to inyalidate the adjudi
| o,taJ ol.ip,c of c,,oh oraditore Whatave
may be the course of the courts OF Virgins
hereafter, it is apparent the United StAtel
Court will guard the rights of the creditor
to the extent of its jurisdiction-and tina
is pretty broad and sweeping, as this decis
ion sufficiently indicates.