Volume 68 — United States Reports

Held: — in a case where a removal and consequent levy had been made while the lease had yet more than a year to run — that although the clause in the lease was obscure, the $3000 was. “rent,” intended to be secured in advance and in a gross sum instead of in the monthly shape, and was not a penalty above and independent of the other and usual rents.

Held: that three thousand, and not one thousand, was the amount in dispute; and accordingly, that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court attached. 2.

Held: and who bad a profoundly intimate knowledge both of tbe facts and tbe law of these cases, remarked, that there was no doubt about tbe acceptance of tbe gauge law. Tbe remaining judges acquiesced in silence. And thus the. only support upon which the decision in that case rested was withdrawn. That case, having been so decided, is not an authority for anything.

Held: not those after acquired. His language is: “ Si Le Roy graunt al un evesque quod omnia maneria et omnes terra; et omnia feoda del dit evesque et ses successors inde in perpetuum, libera sint, et quieta de tiel forest del Roy, &e. Evesque alia maneria sua, terras, et homines suos clamare non potest esse quieta de Foresta, quam illa quce tempore confectionis illius chartae fuerunt in seisina del dit evesque.” (18…

Held: apparently, from this record, by the court below. The case was argued by Mr. Gifford for the appellant, and by Messrs. Browning and Bakewell contra. * 16 Howard, 480 .

Held: i. That a county has the constitutional right to aid in building a railroad within its limits. *184 ii. That the provision of the Constitution, which limited the State debts to the sum of $100,000, and also the provision which declares that the State shall not directly nor indirectly become a stockholder in any corporation, applied only to the State in its sovereign capacity. hi.

Held: for that reason, that the law, or that feature of it, was unconstitutional and void, as impairing the obligation of contracts within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. Suggestion is made that the ruling of the court in the case of McMillan v. McNeill, 4 Wheat., 209 , decided at the same term, asserts a different doctrine, but we think not, if the facts of the case are properly understood.

Held: in the case of the Mechanics’ Bank v. The Bank of Co lumbia, 5 Wheat., 326 , that parol evidence was admissible to show that it was an official act. Signature of the promissor in that case had nothing appended to it to show that he had acted in an official character, and yet it was unhesitatingly held that parol evidence was admissible to show the real character of the transaction.

Ex parte Vallandigham, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 243 (1864), is a United States Supreme Court case, involving a former congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio, who had violated an Army order against the public expression of sympathy for the Confederate States and their cause. Vallandigham was tried before a military tribunal by Major General Ambrose E. Burnside for treason after he delivered an incendiary speech at Mount Vernon; he then appealed the tribunal's verdict to the Supreme Court, arguing that he as a civilian could not be tried before a military tribunal. In February 1864, the Supreme Court avoided ruling on the question by instead unanimously holding that they could not take appeals from military tribunals at all.

Held: that the iron was not covered by a subsequent mortgage. § *263 It is said that the assent of the trustee or bondholders to Walker’s contract with the company was necessary to make it valid against them. The answer is, that if such assent was necessary, the court loill presume it, under the circumstances presented in the case. The construction of the road was the primary object of the organization of the company.

Held: that these words were not a limitation upon the quantity solicited, but a mere conjectural estimate of the extent of the surplus. The case distinguished from The United States v. Fossat ( 20 Howard, 413 ), and Yontz v. The United States (23 Id., 499 ).

United States v. Johnson, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 326 (1863), was a United States Supreme Court case.

in that case, “ sold to the plaintiff a stone, which he affirmed to be a Bezoar stone, but which proved not to be so. No action lies against him, unless he either knew that it was not a Bezoar stone or warranted it to be a Bezoar stone.” “For every one,” says the report, “ in selling his wares will affirm that his wares are good.” Mr. Green, however, did not even do this. His conduct was very careful and upright.

Held: * “ that a judgment for taxes-is fatally defective which fails to show the amount of tax for which it was rendered, and that the use of numerals, without some mark indicating for what they stand, is insufficient.” The judgment was therefore void, and the court was right in excluding the evidence from the jury. Judgment is Affirmed with costs. * Lawrence v. Fast, 20 Illinois, 340; Lane v. Bommelmann, 21 Id., 147.

Held: at the last term, in a case in which the question arose, that the second section repealed in terms all the Circuit Court powers and jurisdiction of the District Courts.] The second of the two acts referred to was entitled “ An act to enable the District Courts of the United States to issue executions and other final process in certain cases,” and provides, “ that in all cases wherein the District Courts had rendered…

Held: in a case where the new entry and survey were free from objection on their face, that the warrants, which called for no specific tracts anywhere, were not so far “satisfied” or “merged” as that a new and effective entry and survey might not be afterwards made in another district open to the soldier, to wit, in the Virginia Military District in Ohio, and which would be protected against any subsequent location by the…

Held: that if this were true, then, inasmuch as no rate of premium had been fixed by the agreement of the parties, and the plaintiff had refused to pay the additional premiums which the companies had demanded, there was in reality no contract of insurance consummated as to the goods on that vessel.

Held: were or were not adapted to the welding up and re-forming the ends of railroad rails when exfoliated or shattered from unequal wear.

Held: that the legal obligation of the partner intrusted being only to get payment of the mortgage, he might make an arrangement for his own benefit with a third person, without tho knowledge of his partners, by which such third person should buy the mortgaged estate, giving him, the intrusted partner, an interest in it; and if the mortgage debt was fully .paid by such partner into the firm account, that there was no…

Held: that the evidence was all admissible: the receipts on the plainest principles of evidence; the letters and entries on principles not so plain, but still admissible, as falling within the category of verbal facts; neither of them being hearsay, nor declarations made by the party offering them, and tending, both of them, to illustrate and characterize the principal fact, to wit, the transmission of the receipts, and…

Held: j.. That an order to enter up a decree was not to be taken as the date of a decree entered subsequently ‘‘nowfor then,” but that the date was the day of the actual and formal entry. i..