National Republican., 1886-11-02
THE COURT RECORD.
United States Supreme Court. following
business was transacted in the Supreme Court
Of the United States Yesterday:


United States Supreme Court.-Tho following
business was transacted in the Supreme Court
Of the United States yesterday:
Nos. 739 and $50 John r. Delano, appellant
nnd plaintiff in error, VS.. Peter Butler, r.
ceiyer. Opinion by Justice Matthews, a,irn-
ing the decree Of the circuit court below.
The decision in these two cases controls also
the following cases. and will be decisive of
four or five hundred suits pending in th3
courts below: Nos. S2l to Sli, Harvey NILS,
The Taunton Savings Bank, Tho Charleslown
Five Cent Savings Bank, and Charles Y. Nor
rison, plaintiffs In error, against Peter Butler
receiver, aud Nos 100 to I93, the same parties
as appellants, against the Same as appellee
judgments and DEGREES affirmed with costs.
No. 1905. Caroline J. Whitney, et al, eNecu-
tors, plaintiiis in error, w Peter Butler re-
ceiycr. In error TO the circuit court OF the
United States for the district OF Massachusetts,.
This is another Pacific National Bank case, but
one resting upon different set of facts. Tho
testntOr of the plaintiffs IN error ut time Of his
death held 100 shares of the seek Of the bank.
Before the suspension of tho bank this stock
had been sold, but owing to oversight or negli-
genco Of the bank officials II had not been
formally transferred on the banks books. In
view Of this state Of facts the court holds that
the responsibility of the defendants ceased
upon the surrender of the certificates to the
bank ard the delivery TO Its president Of
power OF attorney sufficient to effect, aud In.
tended to effect, MS thnt officer well knew,
transfer Of the stock TO the purchaser. The
Judgment is therefore reversed aud the cause
remnndcd, with directions to enter judgment
for tho defendants. opinion by justice liar.
Ian,
a decision was also rendered by the court ia
the case Of the Jacksonville, Pensacola aud
Mobile Railroad Company, appellant, VS.. Tho
United States. This was n suit brought by ths
railroad company "a land grant road t) re-
cover balance alleged TO be due for trans
porting the United States mails The amount
sued for is the difference between the sum re-
CeiVed by the claimant for carrying the mail
from July ], 1876, to June 30, 1880 and the sum
II would have received had the rate of cOmpen-
sation prevailing up to June 30, 1876 been con
tinued for the next four years. The company
contends that It had virtually n contract with
the government which should have prevented
the Postmaster General from changing this
rate of compensation. This court holds that
where no collateral stipuletons ARE m lde, anl
no duration of time is prescribed, but the
service is exacted SIMPLY from the obligation
growing out of the acceptance of the cOndl-
tion of the land grant, It rests in the discretion
oil tho Postmaster General to change the price
from time TO time as in his Judgment, the
public interest may require. IL would be
against all analogies to hold that n continu.
uncc of the service after the termination OF q
written contract for four years creates an OBJ.
n ligo1i9n , q renewed cor contract not t. merely
durntion Of time. There Is no principle that
could justify the implication. The Judgment
OF the circuit court Is affirmed. Opinion by
The other decisions of the court were as fol-
lows;
OBrien ct al In error TO the circuit court of
the United States for the southern district of
Mississippi. Judgment reversed with costs and
cause rcmanded for new trial for further
proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion
of this court Opinion by Justice Harlan. Dis
senting-Justice Field, Chief Justice Waite,
Justice Miller, and Justice Blatchford.
No. 3j2 s. W. Little ct al, appellants, VS.. Eze.
kiel Giles ct al. Appeal from the circuit court
of the United states Tor the district of Nebraska
Appeal of X. II. Oakley and S. @, owen, two of
dismissed nnnrpp
| with costs and cause remandod with directions
| toremand the same TO the district court ofLan-
caster county, from which 1t was removed.
| opinion By Justice Bradley.
| No. 1856 The New York Elevated Railroad
| Company, plaintiff In error, VS.. The Filth Ma
tional Bank OF the City Of New York. Motion
| TO dismiss denied. Opinion by Chief Justice
| Waite. Justice Field took no part in the deci-
| sion of this motion.
=, No; ga. The United States, appellant, vs..
The Maxwell Land Grant Company ct al. Mo-
tion to advance granted and cause assigned for
argument at the head of the call on the first
day the court is in session after the February
| recess.
No. 1906. The Western Union Telegraph Com.
| pany, plaintin in error, vs. Tho State Board OF
Assessment. Motion to advance denied.
No. S59 Alexander b. Mckinley, plaintiff In
error, VS.. Jerome b. Wheeler ct al. Motion to
| advance denied.
No. 800 The County of Upshur, plaintiff in
error, VS.. BENJAMIN Rich ct al; Motion TO ad;,
vance for hearing with Nos 1883 and 1910 aud
for leave to argue the case orally denied, but
leave granted to file printed briefs on submits
| sion.
The other buslnessltransacted wasas follows:
Motions were made to advance aud hear to-
gether Immediately after the February recess
all the cases now on the docket Of this court
which involve the great telephone controversy
Counsel stated to the court that the records In
these cases comprise 25,00O octave pages o.
printed matter, and that the argument, IL al
week or more. The numbers and titles OF tn,
cases are as follows No. llS, Amos Il. Dolhea
VS.. The American Bell Telephone Company
appeal from the. circuit court of the Unite
States for the district of Massachusetts; Nos
GG7 and Cos The Molecular Telephone Com
pany VS.. The American Bell Telephone Com
pany appeal and CrOss.nppeal from the UniteI
States circuit court for the southern district o
New York; No. 1902, the Clay Commercial
Telephone Company vs.. the American Bel
States circuit court for The eastern district o
Pennsylvania No. llGi, the Peoples Tce
phone Company VS., the American Bell Tele
cySRP GSmPs%y sdSRern G% hS Tnts
New York and No. ll6j, the overland Telc
phone Company w. the American, Bell Telo
phone Company, appeal from the, unitet
New York. The court took the motions undo
adviscment. The records in these cases art
the most rouminous ever presented to this
court. Copies enough of the record TO supply
all the justices In the single case of the PeO
pies Telephone Company against the Amer
can Bell Telephone Company occupy nearl
No. i45. Acalus l.. Palmer, plalntiff in error
VS., Edwin A. Hussey. Motion TO dismiss 0
affirmed submitted by Mr.. S. W. Bower in sup
port of motion, and by Mr., a. W. Speir in op
position thereto.
No. II. Henry $. Hale It al. &c, plaintiff f
error VS.. ElishaSE, Everett. In error to tn
! supreme court of the state of Pennsylvania
ON motion of Mr.. George Harding, of cOunsC
for plaintiff in error, dismissed with costs pc
No. e5S. Anton schindelholz. appellant. vs.
| (inlnFaiO
ing Company, Appeal from the circuit coui
of the United States for the district of Coli
rado. On motion of Mr.. Leigh Robinson, fc
appellant, dismissed with costs.
No. q. Theodore 7. White ct al, appellan
VS.. George II. Dunbar ct al. Argument eor
cluded by Mr.. VIM. 6. Henderson for appel
lants.
No. o. The New York, Lake Erie and Yves
ern Railroad Company, appellant. vs.. Tor
Riekalls ct al: Argument commenced by Mr.;
d. shipman for appellant and continued b
Mr.. Charles L. Tracy for appcllees.
Adjourned until to-day at ~ o'clock.
Court in General Term-Chief Justice CARTE
and justices Cox and Merrck.-Ruppert VI
Heseei opinion by Justice Merrick adiustin
Brewer VS.. District OF Columbia; opinion b
Justice Cox in behalf of complainant. Bait
more and Potomac Railroad VS., Fifth Bapti
Church; opinion by chief Justice denying rC
lief asked for by complainant and atllrmin
Judgment below. Glenn VS.. Busey deere
signed and judgment for costs for defendan
Thaw VS.. Ritchie; bond of appeal to Unite
States supreme Court approved. Colmesnil v
Webb; decree correcting error In entry of deere
Of Feb. Is, 1856. MclntiIe VS.. Mclntire: o
hearing. Assignment unchanged.
Circuit Court-Justice Hagner,-Caudy v
Smith; order on defendant to employ ne
counsel. Merritt vs. DittrCh; Judgment b
default. Fenp9ll vs.. skidmorei suit abatec