The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-03-18
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Southern Agents Liable for Funds Intrusted
to Them at the Outbreak of the War.
Special to the indianapolis journal.

Southern Agents Liable for Funds Intrusted
to Them at the Outbreak of the War.
Special to the indianapolis Journal
WNsHINGToN, March 1.-THE Supreme Court
rendered decision, to-day, of much interest to
Northern capitalists who had money IN the
hands of Southern agents at the outbreak of the
rebellion The suit was brought by Northern
parties to recover of Southern agent who had
their funds. His defense was that he was com
PEELED to pay the money to the confederate gov
ernment under the confiscaton act The Su-
preme Court holds that the Confederacy has no
legal status; that its acts al no defense: that
the Southern trustee was part of the Confederacy
and cannot plead such defense that the North
ern creditor can recover.
A decision was also rendered in the important
State claim case, No. 16 ex parte Common
wealth of Virginia. This is a petition for writ
of mandamus to compel the Secretary of the
Treasury to deposit with the State of Virginia
1872, 800 as the proportionate part of the fourth
installment of public money, which, by an act
approved June 49, 1885, the Secretary of the
Treasury was directed to deposit with the
States. The court holds first, that the act
created no debt or legal obligation upon the
and only made provisions for deposit temper
arily with the States, subject to recall by the
government of a portion of the surplus revenue
of the United States. Second that the original
act authorized deposits to be made out
of the surplus revenue in the treasury
on the 1st of January, 1887. The act of Oct Q
1887, postponed the deposit of the fourth install
ment until Jan. ], 1889, and when that time ar
rived that installment could not be deposited,
because the condition of the Treasury at that
time did not admit Of the depositing being done
but Congress has not made the fourth Install
ment a charge upon the revenue arising in the
Treasury since Jan l, 1899, and the Secretary
has no power to apply the present revenue to
meet the fourth inStallment without authority
of an act of Congress. The petition for the
writ of mandamus is denied. Under the act of
1886, to which construction has thus been given
by the court, there was deposited with the
States in 1886, twenty eight in number $10I GA
This sum has since been carried upon the books
of the Treasury as assets; but had the unavail-
able one, the fourth installment in il. been paid
it would have increased this sum to $37, 46S, S5S
The only State which has followed the example
of Virginia in instituting proceedings to enforce
the deposit of the fourth instament is the State
of Arkansas, which recently made formal
demand upon the Secretary of the Treasury.
A decision relating to the duties and response
bi1itieS of United States marshals and their sure
ties was also rendered in the case of George |
Lammyn ct al. against Louis Frueser ct al. ex
ecutors, in error from the Circuit Court of the
United States for the district of Nevada The
court holds the taking by marshal of the
United States upon writ of attachment on
mesne process against one person of the property
of another is breach of the condition of his of
fetal bond, for which his sureties are liable.
Judgment of the Circuit Court affirmed
A decision was also rendered in the case of
Swift & Courtney and the Beecher Match Com
pany, appellant against the United States, ap-
peal from the Court of Claims. This was a suit
brought by the match company to recover from
the United States $685. 424 for commissions upon
the purchases of internal revenue stamps under
tire revenue laws of 1863, 1864 and 1870. In the
Court of Claims the match company's petition
was dismissed. The court reverses the iudg-
ment of the Court of Claims and remands the
case, with directions to render judgment in favor
of the match company for $2S,6l6, which is all
of its claim not barred by the statute of limita-
ton.
A decision was also rendered in the case of
the BuTow- Giles Lithographing Company,
plaintiff in error, against Napoleon Sarony, in
error from the Circuit Court of the United
States for the Southern district of New York.
This was a suit brought by Sarony against the
lithograph company, under the provision of sec
ton 1852 of the Revised Statutes, for alleged
infringement of copyright upon photograph
of Oscar Wilde. The only important question