New-York tribune., 1885-03-03
TIE COURTS.
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.


ary recess ChefJustice Waite presided Tor inc hrs'
time since his recent lncss. large number OF dec'-
sons rendered. but only Few OF them "oro VI
general public interest In tho case OF the Unted
appellant. against Edward L. Jordan, which was 10 ro
cover certain internal revenue taxes illegally coiec'ou
from citizens OF Tennessee the Court holds that no'
within the discretion Of the Secretary OF the treasury "
of any Court to determine whether the severai SUMS
specaed in the act OF Congrss providing for tho reuhd
ing these or were not the c1acl SUMS "
the taxes actually assessed and collected Inc Juusne"
OF the Court OF Claims is affirmed Opinion by Justice
Batchford. The decision affects the claims vi
| eiehtv-one citizens OF rutherford County Tenn
decision was also rendered bv tho Court in the pat
ent case of Charles f. Blake appellant against the Cy
and County of San Francisco David Scannei et al. AP
peal from tho United States Circuit Court Tor tho oou
ern District California This was suit for alleged IN
frngement OF the reissue OF patent originally granted
February O. 1864 to Thomas II. Bailey for q new ana
improved valve for water cylinders and steam IRE EN-
gines. and other pump cylinders The Court hoius '
in the device which the appelloes arc said 10 nave m
frnged there was invention The combination WAS
already in public use steamships. The application OF
the valve TO similar on land was not new colho'
nation or a new invention Bacys psten., therefore,
was not valid and the charge OF infringement cannot Oe
sustained The decree OF the Circuit Court is athrmed
decision was also rendered in the railroad tax case OF
the ST. Louis Iron Mountain aud southern Kai"Ay Non
pany plaintiff In error, against James H. Berry ana
Others as Board of Railroad Commissioners OF inc
State of Arkansas The only question In controversy
here whether the Iron Mountain Railway company Is
exempted from taxation In Arkansas by virtue OF inc
eleventh section Of the charter OF the Cairo ana fu'oh
Railroad Company with which the former company
has consolidated The Court holds the exemption from
taxaiion declared I'm the eleventh section of the char
ter of the Cairo and Fulton Company did not pass by
the &C. OF consolidation TO the Iron Mountain company
The Judgment OF the Supreme Court OF Arkansas Is
affirmed.
An interesting and important decision was also rem
dcred In the stolen bond OF s. Morgan Co. ana
l. Won Hoffman & Co. appellants, against the United
states and the United States appeantagainst the Man
Savings Institution Appeals from tho Court OF
Claims These four cases involve claims against the
United States for the payment OF certain o-o
coupon bonds, consOls OF 1868, Issued under the
Act OF Congress March 3. 1865. and amounting in the
aggregate To Ss 600 October 81 1873 these bonds
were I'm the possession of the Manhattan Savings nstu
ton savings bank OF New York city. but on thai dhy
they, with other bonds, amounting In all 10 ABOUT
s. 1000 were taken from the safe OF the
bank by burglars and carried away. On July 30. OF
that year. the Secretary OF tho Treasury had issued
a call for the redemption Of s5OOO.OoO OF o-2o
bonds including the bonds here IN controversy and had
given notice that they would be paid on ana aiter
october TO- Atdinoront times during the following
year Morgan Co.. aud Won Hoffman Co.. OF London
nurchased in good faith from we'll known and re.pon-
bile dealers In CITY, tho thrtysx bonds hero IN con
troycrsv which had been called for redemption on Jmy
so 1873, and stolen from the Manhattan savings si
tuton inst previous TO the maturity OF the call Whcn
! Morgan & Go. and Won Hoffman CO. presented tAr"
bonds at the TIsGTy wi M lor % Of the Mam6a,,nn
savings Institution from which they had been stolen
The claims OF The several pdrne' were thHn Supntten
v tc secret ry OF the Treasury TO the Conr OF Claims
for adjudication, the United states not denying rs a
Of claims In long and carcfl opinion by IT'S late Chief
Justice held conclusions OF law that II the cIIhHl7
| Marian 4 Co and Won Hoffman & Co. bRd purchased
the bonds I'm good faith for value before maturity ihcr
title would prevail against hhl OF the Ma'hhnn Sa, &
] fTlf ~
ase' ,be cal iI0 Of tHe sccrctary OF the Treasury
rcenption fixed and declared In pursuance OF thal Ia"
hv The secretary had been originally written IN the CON
rae, c as the Gna day Of payment 1t therefore sd
Judged that the claimants, Morgan Co.. aud Won Hon
co 10 wITS hs r"ead OF Of d rule % Would
Otherwise shield their little against rnpeachment g..
contract by Court OF Claims which would make It
read as day whom interest Is to cease mad been
founds aud obtcraies the express dis ncOn made IN
Law sS @ sSTe9 "Soo 6cent au bs. ac law
gives ito the holder three months after the date OF the
for pavnen or exchange, with interest 70 the date OF
redemption, but the only penalty IL Preacr9es tho @
loss of future interest. In no other RESPECT
does It alter the ORIGINAL contract II seeS' 70 nlSse %
immunity. 1t stands, therefore upon It's statutory bl'
as bond rcdecmabe the Treasury on demand with
ont interes after the maturity of the CALL payable &C
cordiug to It's original terms. and not overdue III Tue
commercial TIL after the day Of unconditional pay
mcnt. 4. The rule as TO ordinary negotiable pa
per payable demand is that It Is not due without
demand until after the lapse OF reasonable tnG within
which TO make demand and what the length OF mat rea
sonable time may vary according 70 te 'rcicrS
by the intentions OF the parties as manifested III me
il is known TO have been aud put in circulation.
In reference to the bonds involved III this liti-
he title OF the purchasers acquired unreasonable
length of time had elapsed after the maturity
any holder had right without prejudice except
| in1o I'd gf q o.
wmo,u wncnud,tionsiiy payable We arc therefore Of
Holman Co. respectively TO the lands claimed by them
ought TO have prevailed against that set up by the Man
Ing the several judgme the Court OF Claims la these
reversed aud tho cases are remadcd Win fc
tons to render Judgments In accordance with tuis
opinion ,,...
Pacific Railway Company, plantf error against Lewls
Dunmeyer IL error 10 the Supreme Court OF Kansas
$500 but it raises questions which said to be OF i'm
portance causing conr9verted titles to many
TO the title small piece of land embraced within the
limits of the grant TO the Union Pacific Railway and ts
branches One, Miller, made homestead entry on this
land July %, 1866 and IL II admitted that s entry was
valid II the land public land subject to snch entry
The grant the railroad company conveyed TO II all OF
certain alternate sections OF land dncnding the piece
controversy mot sold reserved otherwise disposed
OF by the United states, and to which preempon or
homestead claim may not have attached at the time the
e S 3 Of he r and e e
company s whether the homestead claim of the former
axed The Court holds first, that under this grant
|
words the puipOrt the act which likes the tne
OF definite the act Of ng the plot Of
this line in the Office OF the Commissioners Of the General
Land Olce second that the language In the excepting
clause grant not modified or repealed by section
of the act OF 1864 thlrd that the desig
nation OF the general route OF the road ana the n {"
man thereof the General Land Ohfcc, July IL, l'G6
did moi withdraw the land from homestead entry under
the satutes by virtue OF which the company claims II
fourth that line Of definite location OF the company
road was filed with the Commissioner OF the General
Land Ofce September u. 1866; hfth, the homestead
claim of Miher had attached prior to that time nnd
sixth that when Miller subsequently abandoned ms
entry the land did not revert 10 the railroad company as
n orually granted TO IT, but remained part OF INC
uulic domain. The judgment OF the supreme Court oi