Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1881-01-08
AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION.

The United States Supreme Court has
just given decision in the case Of Will
liams & Arnert against jason N. Bru.-
fly, administrator, the practical effect Of
which, it would appear. will be 10 es-
tsblsh the authority of that court to ig-
more the Judicial authority of any Slate
as such, 10 issue its naDdsle reversing
the decisions OF any interior court, with
out acting through the States superior
courts. and 10 execute its processes di-
rectly on the premises by its own mar
sLa!s. The case was n suit 10 the Cir
cult Court OF Rockingham county, Va,
against Geo. w. Bruffy's estate, to re-
| cover the yslue of goods scld by the
| plsiDtifls, Who are Penn.ylyanisns, in
| March 1861. The administrator plead
! ed the act OF the Confederate govern
| ment ssquestralipg debts to alien enc
mics, and that under the act the amount
| claimed had been paid over to the re-
ceiver appointed under the law. This
| payment, it WIGS held, dischared the debt.
Tie Rockingham Court admitted the
plea AZ valid, giving Judgment tor the
! defendant, aud the Supreme Cont OF
Appeals OF Virginia refused to reopen
the case, holding the judgment Of the
court below to be plainly right" The
| case was taken 90 writ OF error to the
Supreme Court of the United States,
which directed the action Of the Virgin
ia Appeals Court TO be reversed and
the case be heard before it. To this
mandate the Virgiuis Supreme Court
OF Appeals replied, declining to take ao-
ton on grounds mainly technical, such
as that its action had been final in tho
premises, and the Virginia statutes ex-
pressly prohibited the issue of process
on appeal, writ of error or snpersedsos
after certain interval OF time had elsps
ed, which was tho case in this instance.
The Supreme Court of tho United States
has now decided, Justice Field deliver
ing the opinion, that it was the duty OF
the Virginia Court Of Appeals to have
re-opened the case, and If it had done
SO it would have seen reason to re-
verse the decision Of tho court below.
So long as that decision Of the court be
low remains unrevelsed il will DO su-
thorityto ell the inferior courts OF Vir
GINA that the conGsca,iou OF deb's due
10 loyal citizens under on act OF the
Confederate government is valid pro
oeeding. II is therefore, the duty OF tho
Supreme Court of the United States TO
review the case, and, in order 70 relieve
the Virginia Supreme Court Of Appeals
from the embarrassment Of acting in do.
fauce OF . Virginia statute, it decides
TO withdraw It's mandates to that court
and 10 Issue another mandate directly
to the inferior court Of Rockingham, re-
curing that court to reverse its judg-
ment sud give judgment in favor OF
the plaintiff for the amount decided to
represent the claim upon an agreed
statement Of facts, with interest from
maturity, except for time of actual war,
the Judgment 10 DO paid by Brufy's ad
ministrstor in like manner - othor
claims against his estate. The decision
seems to cover the point that in federal
cases the Supreme Court has the right
TO ignore the action OF State courts en-
tirely, to pass them by and deal with
the facts presented 30 if il had originsl
as well ~ 6nal jurisdiction in the prem
ises. This synopsis of tho opinion OF
the Supreme Court OF the United Sintos
is furnished, substantially, by tho Bslt
more Sun.
The decision may have the OBJECT
to comphcate matters issning ont OF the
property which belonged to the defend.
ant, and which was Liable for the debt
which has thus been passed upon. The
bulk Of the property OF Mr.. Brufy, de
ceased, consisted OF large three story
brick building, appropriated TO business
and a dwelling. II passed from the
hoirs Of deceased by sale, 70 other psr'
ties, aud is now owned, We believe, by
Mr.. Abner Sbsckloit, who conducts
hardware store 10 the business part OF IL.
We think, however, be is not the direct
purchaser from the administrator, but
the funds arising from the original sale
have no doubt boen distributed among
the heirs, the administrator has gone
through a conrt Of bankruptcy since
then, and the whole loss may fall upon
the present possossor OF the property or
the person from whom he purchased.
Whether this IL the exact state of the
case or nor, we will not positively as
sort; but that serious complications will
arise ont OF tho determination OF the
United States Supreme Court, we have
no doubt.
The decision implies even wider
scope Of jurisdiction than is announced
in the case TO which il directly applies.
It ia q broad declaration that rights OF
foreign creditors must bercspected, aud
that the plea OF poverty condition
brought on by the voluntary act OF the
people OF State, cannot DO pat in 70
invalidate tho ndjudica,ed clsims OF such
creditors. Whatever may be the conrs,
Of the courts Of Virginia hereafter, il is
apparent the United States Court will
guard the rights of the creditors TO the
extent Of It's juri.dic,ion--ard that is
pretty broad and sweeping, ~ this de-
cision sof1ioinntlv indicatea