National Republican., 1881-12-06
SUPREME DECISIONS.
SOME INTERESTING CASES SETTLED.
A bankruptcy Question Before the United States
Supreme Court, for the First Time In Its
History, AdIudicated-Cases Argued
or Submitted In Brief.

The most important case decided by the su-
preme Court of the United States yesterday was No.
76 Executors OF William @. Conner, late sheriff
ofthe city and county Of New YORK, against Will
lam III. Long, assignee in bankruptcy of BenJa-
min II. spaulding, brought here by writ Of error
TO the United States Circuit Court for the Southern
District fNew York. The question involved In
this case Is one which has never before been pre-
sented to the Supreme Court of the United States,
viz: whether n sheriff is individually liable for
acts performed in good faith, in the proper dis
charge Of his official duty and without knowledge
Of their Illegal character. The case in which
this question arises is briefly as fol-
lows: on the Goth of July, 1875
warrant of attachment was duly and
regularly issued in an action commenced on that
day by Alfred j. Dickerson against Benjamin II.
spaulding In the Supreme Court Of the state OF
New York. Under this warrant William G. Conner
sheriff of the city and county of New York, levied
upon the property belonging to sRaulding, which
is In controversy in this case ThreeNays later
certain creditors of Spaulding, who are now rep
resented by the assignee,
INSTITUTED BANKRUPTCY
proceedings against him in the District Court Of
and on September he was adjudged bankrupt.
In the meantime, and after the filing Of
the petition in bankruptcy, the sheriff Conner
of the Supreme Court of New York in the attach
ment suit aforesaid, sold the property levied upon
by him, and the proceeds were used to satisfy the
assignee in bankruptcy Of spauding then brought
suit against the sheriff to recover damages for the
wrongful sale of this property after the Institution
ofbankruptey proceedings; The main question at
issue Is whether the sheriff is liable as an
when such @ acts we We're @ performed m u" under f1 the
mandate OF n competent court and with
out the exercise of any individual discretion.
sheriff, upon the authority mainly Of II long line
Of English decisions, which, IL was believed estab-
lished that rule. This court, in a carefully pre-
Dnrp1 ODiuiOn bv Justipa Matthpwe admits That
repeated decisions In the English courts have es-
tablished tpdeially the rule that The sherfis In
ever, declines to govern itself by the
ENGLISH PREcEDENrs,
for the reason that In 1889 Parliament, recogniz-
ing the injustice and inexpediency of the
of I'd and Sd Victoria, c. 20, aud by several
later acts, to protect the sheriff in the
onS bis p, ns Te dy agansS suSn sG
evidence of the highest character that the rule in
| question ought never to have been established
Furthermore II can hardly be assumed that Con-
gress intended In the bankrupt act to restore rule
| of ofliabitywhich had become obsolete in England
nearly thirty years before. This court therefore
| regards itself as justified in deciding the case
according to reason and equity and not ac-
cording to precedent, and 1t holds that the
| sheriff is not liable. Tho State Court, JUS
tice Matthews in substance says, had full and
perfect jurisdiction until the institution OF the pro-
ceedings in bankruptcy. But the fact which put
an end to its Jurisdiction did not appear by its own
| record, and consequently was one of which the
sheriff could not by any legal possibility have
bound to obey the order of The court directing t6e
sale of the property, and no liability attaches to
him individually as consequence Of such. obe-
dience. The judgment of the Circuit Court Is re-
ycrsed, with costs, and the cause remanded, with
| instructions to award new trial.
| Other Decisions.
| The other decisions rendered by the Court to-
No. o. The brig Annie Lindsey ct al, appel
lants, VS.. Daniel Brown Ct al. Appeal from the
District Of New York. This was n suit for damages
on account of collision at sea. The decree of the
eonrt below is affirmed with costs. Opinion by
No. 2sS. The United States, appellant, VS.. Charles
M. Taylor Appeal from the Court of Claims.
Ems was an ac.l9n on Dronghat against the United
| tain land In Little Rock, Ark made under the act
Of June 7, 1862. The Judgment. of the Court of
No. 6. George Hearst, appellant, VS.. Fannie b.
| Halligan, administrative, &c. Appeal from the
Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern
| Opinion by Justice Harlan.
No, 10 Calvin Il. Hale, ct al, plaintiffs in error,
| VS.. Duncan b. Finch. In error to the Supreme
Court OF Washington Territory. Judgment affirmed
No. iOi; Henry N. Walker, Ct al, appellants, VS.;
| Daniel w. Powers, ct al. executors, &c. Appeal
from the Circuit Court of the United States for the
Northern District of New, York. DEGREES affirmed
| with costs. Opinion by Justice Miller.
No. 60. John c. Beck, plaintiff in error. VS.
Henry Meagher ct al: In error to the Supreme
| Court OF Montana. Judgment afhrmed with costs
| Opinion by Chief-Justice Waite.
No. so. Samuel 2. Williams, plaintiff In error VS.
The Township Of Nottawa, Mich. In error to the
Circuit Court of the United States for the Western
District of Michigan. Judgment reversed with
costs and cause remanded, with directions to dis
miss the suit at the cost Of the plaintiff in error
Opinion by ChiefJustice Waite.
No. 106 Gardner A. Sage jr., appellant, VS.. iona
than @. Wyncoop, assignee, &r,, ct al Appeal from
| ern District of New York, Decree affirmed, with
costs. Opinion by Chief-Justice Waite.
No. l4S Isaac 9. Bateman ct al., plaintiffs In
error. vs. ID. Il. Firman assignee, &c. In error "a
| the Supreme Court of Utah. Judgment affirmed
with costs and interest. Opinion by Chief-Justice
Waite.
No II. The County Court of Knox County,
| Missouri, plaintiff in error, VS.. the United States
ex rel. George W. Harshman. Ordered for reargu-
ment with No. 633
No. Q. (origlnaD. The State. of New York, COM
| plainant VS.. the State of Louisiana ct al on mo-
| ton of William a. Duer leave granted to file an
swer to crossbill and replication to answer to
original bill, and commission ordered to issue to
Sidney De Kay, as special commissioner, to take
| testimony.
| Cases Argued or Submitted.
| The cases below named were argued or sub
| mittcd on printed BRIEFS
| No. Sl5. William N. Wood, appellant, VS.. the
Burlington and Missouri Railroad Company IN
| Nebraska.
No. 1905. The Town of Louisville, plaintiff in
error VS. The Portsmouth Savings Bank.
| No. 1905. The County of Clay, plaintiff In error
| VS.. The Society for Savings.
No. 1854 Lewis Hnmmack ct al. appellants VS.
The Farmers Loan and Trust Company.
No. 1865, Hobart G. Dngger ct al., plaintiffs in err
ror vs. W. p Bocock, CT al.
| Admissions TO the BARR, T. w. Duke, of Char
| lottcsvile, Va, and Darwin L. Ware, of Boston
Mass. Adjourned
THE CRIMINAL COURT.
| Hu,Vuo rox snurancs sl,e nac.n,ha, T.,.,,.