New-York tribune., 1883-12-11
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
A NUMBER OF DECISIONS OF PUBLIC INTEREST
RENDERED..

-
RENDERED.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 10.-The proceedings OF
the United states Supreme Court to-day foows
No 1ol-Joseph p al appellant, agt. Joseph
l. Hudson assignee. ct al Appeal from the Circu Court
OF the United for the Eastern District of Michigan
Decree reversed with costs, and cause remanded Win
directions 20 dismiss the bill.
No. lO0-MaI schnit, appellant agt- Joseph l. Hnd-
SON assignee etc. ct AL Appeal from the Circuit Court Of
the United States for the Eastern District OF Michigan
Decree reversed with costs aud ncmanded with
direction. 90 dismiss the bill.
No l2s-Oakey Randall. plaintiff In error, AIT. the
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, in error
TO the Circuit Court Of the United States for the District
Of Vert Virginia. Judgment affirmed with costs
No lOi-Stephen Percy Ellis, 1t al. appellant, agt
Jefferson Davis Appeal from the Circuit Court Of the
United states for the District OF Louisiana This was
suit I'm equity brought by the next Of kin and collateral
heirs Of the late Sarah Ann Dorsey OF Mississippi for
the purpose OF having set aside a. void and OF no enect
will whereby the sad Sarah Ann Dorsey bedueathed all
her and personal property to her agent and oonden
ttaI adviser jefferson Davis. II s maintained by the
conpansnts that the relief sought should he granted
for the that the testarI m the time the VIII was
drawn and signed not Of sound mind ana tht she
was unduly inAuenocd. ia the court below the Dill OF
complaint was dismissed demurrer This court holds
that the action Of Circuit Court In dlsmssng the bill
was right for the reason the caim Of Mrs. Dorseys
collateral heirs was properly the subject OF an action OF
revendlca;ion, which furnished plain, adequate ana
complete remedy at law. and therefore constituted Oar
to proceedings in equity The decree OF the Circuit
Court affirmed with costs and cause remanded To the
Circuit Court O the United states for the Eastern Dsrct
Of Louisiana.
No. 32-Elizabeth NJ. Townsend, appellant, agt James
e. Little ct al. Appeal from the Supreme Court oi Utah
Territory. Decree affirmed with costs
No 3s-The United States plaintih in error agt Frank
L. Jones. administrator etc, et al. In error " the
fuf-f Uanf
affirmed.
No s2-Joseph Thomas trustee, appellant, agt. the
Brownv1e Fort Kearney and Pacific Railroad Company
ct al Appeal from the Crogit Court OF the United states
for the District Of Nebraska This was suit To iorecoe
mogage upon railroad property belonging a. FdI ,e e
ney and Pacific Railroad Company but aieIWaIu Uns C
fcrred BY consolidation TO the NeDrlsKa hawW hod SU
pAuy fhe mortgage given to secure certain bonus
issued 70 construction company under tee t
the building OF the road The abpessn, sn, n % me boaers
OF the secured by H. The defence set UP y tnat tue
mortgage grew out OF irae m & nS n.Irated NV
the Credit MObiler In the court DeI0W tno co
palnantS bin was dismissed Ins court rectos M 20
enter decree In favor OF the complainant iOr TlVo,vs
With interest II sale Of the road Sh"n % DC p rata
on the bonds secured by the mortgage, on tner men.
"eaipn provided the road sells for much. opinion
10y Justice Miller Justices Field and Matthews not par
No 72GThe Canada Southern Railway Company, plain.
tn In error agt. william w. Gebhard Ell al III eIIOr
10 the Circuit Court OF the United states for the southern
District OF NewYork This was SUIT upon seIlos W
ponGs amounting in the 9sg%e %Scny 10 N January
ls7l In 1873 the company became nsoiVent anu VIII
a view 20 e1trcangi from ts difficulties aJOinl COM
tee representing the directors and the bOndhoaes &c
ysed for the adjustment OF the Dohaod nSos n
This scheme provided for new isseu OF Tif'ouo,ovV
thirty years bonds bearing interest at per cent gnar
ieed ~ TO interest FOR twenty years the Cen
tral and Hudson River Railroad Company, 70 De eA.
changed for the outstanding bonds dollar Nrst iot
dollar as 10 the Canada Southern uItl
mortgage bonds, and for the Othef oonus
aud indebtedness OF the company at certain sPeo So,
fled rates This scheme agreed to the hoideis on
1882 out OF 7O3 OF the first mortgage bonds, ana u o
10th OF April 1873, IL was egaized 10y m tna % nsdn,t9
In this case citizen OF the United states dd not
20 the scheme OF adjustment rensed 70 III hon1ht
bonds for bonds OF the Issue, ana nnay pIVu.ne
suit In the United States Cirt Court 10 correct tno
amount Of his interest coupons The Circuit SOut rem
dered decision In his favor whereuPon tno 40 a
Southern Railway Company appeasa IN CSIer In stiee
long and carefully prepared opinion by oeel Ju sso @
Waite says that the questions presented ny tne c"se o
two In NUMBER ..,o,.ho ronIpion
First-Whether the Arrangement act OF tne DonaOn
Parliament Ia valid In Canada and had the enec. OF Dnu
ing bondholders WITHIN the ~ tno
terms OF the scheme and second, Whehe d d1 etts
thai effect In Canada, the courts Oh tno Uhteo ~
should give n the same effect against eLehs vi tno
United States whose rights occurred DeIoIe I,s ha
The first of these questions the Court answers IN tho
a0irmafye "The confirmation and legallIaton ot Il,
scheme OF arrangement under such circumstances, ue
Court i'm substance says, lis no more thail rs eohe "a
baukr1lptcy wien composition agreement Win psnk
nnf debt3r II sssenfed 10 by the required majority
OF creditors IA made binding ON tne noh
! aSsenfnu minority, In just sense 90 buen