Evening star., 1905-11-06
THE SUPREME COURT
MRS. GLovER's DEED OF CONVEY
ANcE UPHELD.

The United States Supreme Court today
ahhrmed the decision OF the District Supreme
Court in the suit Of Edward White Of st.
Louis agt. Augusta Patten Glover. wife Of
John M. Glover and a sister of Mrs. Corbin.
wife OF Maj. Gen. Corbin. The Supreme
Court Of the District refused to set aside a
deed by which Mrs. Glover conveyed to her
co-helrs In the estate of the late Edmund
and Anastasia Patten of this city her inter-
est in real and personal property in the Dis
trict. or to give judgment based on a judg-
ment Of the circuit court of st. Louis In a
suit to recover on promissory notes for
$4,000.
The controversy grew out Of the purchase
from Mr.. White by Mrs. Glover. on Feb
ruary II. 1894. Of one hundred shares of the
Company. for which she gave two promis-
sorry notes. dated February IL, 1894 and
made payable one year after date. Each
note was for the sum OF s.. 400. The notes
were renewed, ana when they again fell
due. remained unpaid. Mr.. White then OBJ
tanned Judgment in the st. Louis courts.
but Mrs. Glover having in the meantime
moved to Washington, Mr.. White instituted
proceedings on the law side Of the District
Supreme Court in an action Of debt The
United States marshal for the District was
unable to serve Mrs. Glover with the papers,
however. and Mr.. White then filed a bill of
complaint on the equity side of the Supreme
Court, and sued Mary E. Patten. Josephine
A. Patten. Edith A. Patten, and Helen Pat
ten, as grantees under the above toned
deed
The testimony Of the defendants showed
that Mrs Glover was indebted to her
mothers estate, and that her four sisters had
paid her $4,000 in consequence of her re-
linquishment of all further claims against
the estate. The District Supreme Court
took the view that the deed of conveyance
was made in good faith, and that Mrs.
Glover actually owed the estate money, and
rendered a decision unfavorable to the
plaintiff. This decision is now sustained
by the Supreme Court.
The court today denied the petition of the
United States for writ of certiorari to
bring to that court the case of William d.
Kirk of Syracuse, N. Y, recently decided
by the circuit court for the second circuit in
Kinks favor. The proceeding was begun to
recover $4,000 from Kirk, who was a
bondsman for John F. Gaynor in that sum,
but the circuit court held the proceeding to
be irregular and refused to hold Kirk re-
sponsible. The United States asked the Su-
preme Court to bring the case up for re-
view by means Of a writ of certiorari. That
this court refused to do by today's action
but there Is still pending a writ OF error in
the case. both methods having been resorted
to by the government to secure considera-
tion by the court of highest authority.
The court today granted the motion for
the advancement on the docket of the cases
of the Cherokee nation of Indians, involv-
Ing the question of liability for the re-
moval of the eastern Cherikees to Indian
Territory, and set their hearing for Janu-
ary next. after other cases now set for
that date.
The court today set aside it's original or
der for the submission on brief of the case
of Hodges and others against the United
States, and directed an oral argument on
the points involved Hodges and others
are under prosecution on the charge of
conspiracy. their offense consisting Of pre-
venting negroes from working at a lumber
mill in Arkansas. The argument was set
for January next.
In an opinion by Justice Peckham, the
court today reversed the decision of the
circuit court of appeals Of the seventh cir
cult in the case of the Nederland Life In
surance Company of Holland agt. Mary
Meinert. The case involved a claim for
IS 600 on policy held by the late William
Meinert of Evansville, Ind. on which the
premium had not been paid for several
years. The company's principal office in
this country is in New York. and the lower
court held that the notice of forfeiture was
not in accord with the laws of that state.
and that therefore the policy must be paid.
The Supreme Court took the opposite view
in today's opinion and held the company
not liable.