The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-06-04
SUPREME COURT ADJ0URNS
AND REPORTS PROGRESS TOWARD
TIE END or TIE DOCKET,
Review Of Work Accomplished During the
sess.on-Lsading Cases Die
posed Of.

WASHINGTON, June IA review Of
the work accomplished by the supreme
Court OF the United States in the term
which ended to-day shows that 10 II
making substantial progress towards the
time when IL shall have caught up with
the business on the docket. The docket
OF original cases brought I'm the court
contained al the beginning OF this term.
the second Monday OF last october. eight
cases; during the term eight additional
ones We're docketed. making a total OF six-
teen I'm all. OF these. nine have been
disposed of; remaining to be entered upon
the docket for 1886, seven.
THE APPELLATE DOCKET.
The appellate docket. the one In which
the public Is mostly Interested. had IA last
October. and Slz have since ben added.
making total of loi5 for the whole
term. OF these, there were disposed of
by opinion Of the Court. by dismissal un-
der the rules, and by dismissal by tho
appellants, 406. leaving go TO be carried
over 10 the next term-a gain OF "a. When
the court adjourned to-day, there were
3s cases still held under adyisement. hay-
ing been argued and submitted to tho
court for it's determination. These in
clude n number Of cases OF general In
terest and importance, among them be-
ing the following:
The two cases OF the United states
against the Western Union Telegraph
Company. and the Union and Central
Pacific Railway Companies, IN which the
Government seeks to break the arrange
ment for the operation of the telegraph
lines along the aided railroads.
Meyer vs.. Richards. In which arises the
validiay Of the Louisiana state bonds.
once paid by the State. and afterwards
resold by Burke, the fugitive State Treas
urer.
The somewhat famous case Of. John @.
Moore vs. Joseph $ Miller. Commission
er OF Internal Revenue. for an Injunction
TO restrain that official from executing
the now defunct incOme-taX law, also goes
over without decision.
QUESTION or JURISDICTION.
A question OF Jurisdiction certified 20
the Supreme Court of the United States
by the Court of Appeals for the sixth dis
trict, was answered i'm an opinion rem
dercd to-day. by Mr.. Justice Brown. The
Cradiff Coal and Iron Company. OF Ten
nessee was placed IN the hands OF re-
ceiver. IN the ordinary course of such pro-
ceedings, and the receiver found that
about 1870 persons. some residents Of Ten
nesee. others Of different states. were
Indebted TO the company I'M sums. many
of which were less than S2ooo. payment
whereof was secured by mortgages upon
land which the company had sold TO
them.
Tn. petition 20 the court was for an order
to bring suit against the debtors In one
proceeding. in order 20 avoid the great
expense OF individual suits. The peii-
tlon was granted the order made. and the
case went forward 10 Judgment. From
this judgment the debtors appealed 10
the Court OF Appeals. and that court
asked the Supreme Court OF the United
states 20 answer this question.
HAD the Circuit Court OF The United
States. In a general creditors suit prop
erly pending therein for the
distribution Of the assets OF an
insolvent corporation, the jurisd.c-
ton TO hear and determine an auxiliary
suit Instituted I'm the same cases by It's
receiver. I'm accordance with other cor
pOratiOns. I'm 50 far as the court re-
ceiver claimed the right 20 recover from
any one debtcr a sum not exceeding
S200?"
The question was answered I'm the ar
nrmative. Justice Brown stating that tho
jurisdiction OF the court 10 wind up
the affairs Of the corporation, under tho
creditors bill carried with II the power
10 sue the debtors of the concern for
the amounts due II. although I'm some
cases they might be less than 5000
the minimum sum that can be involved
in a single proceeding before the court.