National Republican., 1882-10-31
UNITED STATES SUPREME oouRT.
Virginia Bond Case Advanced-Oihcr In-
tereAtInR SuIts.

The Supreme Court Of the United States Monday
granted the petition TO advance the Virginia bond
case OF Andrew Antoni V; Samuel 9. Gieenhow,
signed for argument on the 9TH Of January next
The petition filed by General b f. Butler to adj
sehreiber, appellant, vs.. W. b. Roberts was denied.
The court hold that only private interests aie in.
yolyed in the appeal The fnct that decision
here may dispose of many other suits pending in
the courts below presenting the same questions,
aud thus save costs to individual parties is not OF
itseli sufficient ground for advancing cause.
decision was rendered by the court in the case
NO. q. original er.pdrie, in the matter OF the Balti-
more aud Ohio Railroad Company. This was
petition for writ OF mandanius to compel the
lund 10 allow an appeal in ap admiralty case
growing out ofa collision at sea- where Judgment
mas been rendered against the railroad company
Tor sll1l2 % iii favor of one of the libelants and
for SS,1Ogl3 in favor of the other. The circuit
court refused TO grant the appeal on the, ground
that the value OF the matter in dispute, between
the railroad company and tho respective libel
lantS was less than 5000. This court holds that
IL is impossible to distinguish this case in prno-
pic from the cases Oliver VS.. Anderson, Peters,
1i3; Strutton VS.. JARVIS, Peters, /; Spear VS.;
Place, II Howard 522, and Rich vs.. Lambert, y
Howard, 3l7 under which for half n century "
has been held that when IN admiralty distinct
causes of action in favor of distinct parties grow
ing out OF the same transaction are Joined IN one
suit, according to the practice OF courts OF thnt
Jurisdiction, distinct decroes in favor OF OF against
distinct parties cannot be Joined TO give ths court
Jurisdiction on appeal 1t follows thnt .he circuit ,d
the petition for n mandamus is therefore denied.
Opinion by Chief Justice Waite.
A decision was also rendered by the court in the
important patent case of John II. MOlftt VS.. sam
uel b. Rogers ct al, brought here by appeal from
the circuit court of the United States TOR the DIS
trict of Massachusetts,. This was suitin equity
brought for the infringement of roissued letters
patent dated December s, 1874, and granted to the
complainant, John II. Mofit, for an improvement
In the manufacture of heel-sttieners for boots aud
shoes. The court holds that the specification and
first claim OF the reissued patent is plain nt-
tempt TO include device which was not, and
could not be fairly covered by the original patent
That claim, therefore, which is the only one which
the defendants are charged with Infringing, Is for
dismissing the bill is affirmed. Opinion by JUS
tice Woods.
OTHER CASES.
The other cases decided were as follows: No. 20.
John d. Coughlin, administrator of Francis &
Dnnt, plaintiffs in error, vs. the District of Column
bia. In error to tho Supreme Court of the Dis
trict of Columbia. Judgment reversed with costs,
and cause remanded with directions TO enter jndg.
ment affirming the Judgment entered Oh the former
verdict for the plaintiff nunc pro tune as of No.
ycmber IS, 1876. Opinion of Justice Gray.
No. 69l. The City of Ottawa, plaintiff in or or,
VS.. W. II. Cary In error to the Circuit court OF
the United States for the northern district of Mi
nois. The bonds upon which this suit Is brought
were issued by the city of Ottawa, u municipal
corporation of the State of Illinois, and belong to
the same issue as those involved in Hackett VS..
ottawa" 30 U. s. SO. and in "Oitawa VS.. First Ma
tonal Bank of Portsmouth. N. H." 105 U. S. In
each of those cases the holders were projected
against the uelenSe5 lnteTpOscu, lnlluIy upon Inc
ground thai, being bona flde purchasers for value
the city was estopped by the rccitas in the bonds
from saying that they were not executed for proper
or legitimate municipal purposes In the present
case, however, Cary was not n bona fidc holder,
entitled to the benefit of the rule announced IN
" Haekett VS.. Ottawa" and Ottawa VS.. First Ma
tiona Bank OF Portsmouth" The Judgments re-
versed, with directions to give Judgment upon the
special finding of facts for the city Opinion by
Justice Harlan.
No. 936 The St. Anthony Falls water-Power Co.
plaintiff in error VS.. Ashley q. Morrill, ct al. II
motion of q. D. Barrett i'll behalf of counsel, dis
missed, each party TO pay It's own costs by sipula
lion.
No. 46S. The Atlanta and Richmond Air Line
Railway Company rs!Stif SS--o,s !;
ofGe6Tgia, and
+ No. 400 The Atlanta and Charlotte Air Line Rail
way Company, plaintiff in error, VS.. The State o
Georgia. In error TO the supreme court OF Georgia
On motion of William A. Maury, dismissed Will
costs.
No. 6l2 II, c. Brown, plaintiff in error, vs.; The
State OF Colorado. Arguments submitted on
No. l1l7. John Van Riswick, appellant, VS.. vii
lam E. Spaulding ct al. Decree docketing and
dismssing this case rescnded and leave granted tc
docket cause on payment of costs.
No. &C. The Standard Oil Company, plaintiff in
error, VS.. q. II. Van Etlen. Arguments concluded
by Levi T. Griffin for plaintiff in error.
No. 5S. Tho Steamship Nevada, appellant, VS..
s. ]. Quick ct al. Argument commenced by s. p.
Nash, for appellants, and continued by Eugene
H. Lewis and II. D. Benedict for appellees. Ad
Ourned