The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-04-20
ThEU.S. SUPREME COURT.
A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT De
CISIONS HANDED DOWN.
What Constitutes a Contract With
the United States-The New
Orleans Bond Cases.

WAsHINeroK, April 19.-The fol-
lowing decisions were rendered by the
United States Supre ne Court to-day
No. 2299-The United States ap-
pellant VS.. VIM. ]. Lsndrum; an APP
peal from the Court Of Claims. Land
rum was Collector OF internal Revenue
( II the Eighth Kentucky District, and
brought this suit to recover the one
half per cent. commission on the sale OF
tax paid stamps allowed collectors, I'M
der the act of July 20, 1868. The
Court of Claims gave judgment in
his favor and the Supreme Court sf-
firms that judgment. Judge Woods
delivered the opinion, holding that
Internal Revenue Collectors are en-.
titled TO the one-half per cent. on the
taxes collected by sales of tsx-pa'd
stamps, in addition to the salary al
lowed them, graded according TO the
amount of their annual collections,
provided that their total compensation
shall not exceed i4500 a year.
No. 22O-The South Boston Iron
Company vs.. the United States. A
suit brought by the Irol Company 10
recover $40, 900 damages and $l4S,0J0
profits on the claim tina. the Navy De-
partment had entered into a compact
with it to build new boilers for
several United States vessels, and had
aiterward Suspended all work under
the contract. The Supreme Court az
firms the judgment Of the Court OF
Claims in favor of the United Safes.
The Chief Justice delivering the opin-
ion of the court held, as had previous
ly been decided, that to bind the
United States contracts by the Navy
Department must be in writing and
signed by the contracting parties
That, in the opinion If the court, was
the effect of the act OF June %, 1862
No such contract had been shown IN
this case.
No. 1923 The Board Of Liquidation
Of the city of New Orleans vs.. the
United States ex rel Judah Hart
This was petition in the name of the
United States on the relation of Judah
Hart, a citizen of the State Of New
York, for a mandamus to the Board
of Liquidation OF New Orleans to issue
to him bonds Of the city for the
amount of a judgment which he, in
March, 1882, received against the city
for 1921 ,697, with interest at pei
cent. This judgment was founded on
contracts for municipal purposes mad
from 1872 to 1877. To review it, the
city sued writ Of error from
the Supreme Count, but as it was
without a supeFsedeas Hart issued
a writ of fsri fac,as and levied upon
certain moneys due and to become
due to the city by the Canal aud Olai-
borne Railroad Company and by the
New Orleans Railroad Company, and
also upon the interest OF the city in
the New Orleans Sugar Shed Com.
pany and in the New Orleans suga'
sheds. Proceedings were taken IL
contest these seizures, but judgment
was rendered in favor Of Hart, and tc
reverse that judgment the city sued
out a writ of error, with super
sedeas. While the cssgs werC
pending the city entered int
! q compromise, by which it was
stipulated that the city SHOULD
dismiss her writs OF error, and ths
Hart should renounce bis seizure o
the sugar sheds and apply the bonus
due, and to become due, by the rail
road companies to the pas ment of hi
judgment, and fund lthe balance un
der the provisions of the act known
IS No. 81 of the Legislature of thu
State OF 1884. Under the writ, of fer
fdcids various sums were collected
which reduced the judgment on thu
Sth of July, 1885, TO $76,l94. Har
complied with the stipulatiens Of thu
compromise, and called upon thu
Board of Liquidation TO pre-
pare and deliver to hin
bonds under the provisions o
act No. 81 of 1884 for the balance due
on his Judgment. This the board re-
fused to do. Hart then prayed for
writ OF mandsmus. The board set III
the plea that all the property of thu
city not dedicated to public use anC
also the surplus of what was known
as the premium bond tax wer,
pledged under Act No. 81 OF 1882 Il
the payment of the bonds of the cit!
previously issued and that the act O
1884 in so far as it directs a diversion
OF that property and fund impair
the contract with the bondhOldeT
and is, therefore, unconstitutional anC
void. The court below directed
peremptory mandamus to the boarC
to issue the bonds. The Suprem
Court affirms the judgment below. /
held that the floating debt n the cit.
existing on the passage of OF 1885,
when its validity was est6lished b,
judicial proceedings, as in the case O
the claim Hart could not under tn
constitution OF 1879 be excluded from
the benefits of the appropriation mad
in the act of 1880 for the payment o
the bonded debt.
In No. 1101 the Sun Mutual In
surance Company vs.. the Unite'
States ex REL, Judah Il. Hart, tn
same judgement is rendered as in tn
above case.
No. 215.-The County Court OF Cap
Girardeau county, Missouri, and tn
Judges thereof vs.. the United State
ex rel John F. Hill the judgment {
the lower court is affirmed.
A motion was submitted for leav
to file the petition for writ Of habes
corpus of Joseph S. LonigsD, Alto
ney of Missouri, who was recent
sentenced to Imprisonment for nine'
days for contempt of court, in failin
TO obey an order of the Circuit C5u
of the United States for the Easter
District OF Missouri.