Volume 83 — United States Reports

The United States brought an action of debt on a distiller’s boud, executed by Jonathan Dair and William Sauts as principals, and by James Dair and William Davison as sureties. .

<p>1. The submission to the. voters of a county, under the Code of Iowa, of the question, “whether the county judge at the time of levying the annual taxes shall levy a special tax of a specified number of- mills on a dollar of valuation, for the purpose of constructing a court-house in the county; the tax to . be levied from year to year until a sufficient amount is raised for said purpose, not to exceed.” &c., is (by implication)-a submission of the question whether money shall be borrowed to build the court-house, and negotiable bonds be sold as the means of borrowing; this, though the same section! of the code enacts that the county'judge may submit to the voters the question “ whether'money may be'borrowed to aid in tbe erection of public buildings;” and though the question submitted to the voters as above mentioned be submitted only in virtue of an enactment immediately following,>that “ when the question so submitted involves the. expenditure of money, the proposition of the question must be accompanied by a provision to levy a tax for the payment thereof in addition to the usual' taxes.” This, at least as respects the holders, bond fide and for value, of bonds so issued, when the bonds declare, on their face that “.all of said bonds are issued in accordance with a vote of the people of said county.”</p> <p>2 The county judge being, by the Code of Iowa, the officer designated to decide whether the voters have given the required sanction to the borrowing of money and issuing of bonds, hjs execution and issue of bonds setting forth on their face that “ all of said bonds are issued in accordance with a vote of the people of said county,” and that “ the people have voted the levying of sufficient taxes,” &e., is conclusive evidence against the county of the popular sanction so far as respects holders bond fide and for value.</p> <p>3. A power given to issue county bonds carries with it a power to make them •payable beyond the limits of the county for which they are issued, as also beyond the limits of the State in which the county is, and to. sell them beyond such limits.</p> <p>I. It carries with it, also, a right to cancel bonds previously given to a contractor with the county, but not yet put by him on the market, and to issue to him new ones in a different form.</p> <p>6. Under the Code of Iowa, which enacts that in case of the “absence” of the county judge the county clerk shall supply his place, the said judge is not, when, owing to his absence from the State, the county clerk is ' acting ns county judge in the county — holding a term of the county court there, issuing county warrants, and doing other business, in. the county, in discharge of his duties as acting county judge — so wholly superseded in his office as that he may not, when beyond the limits of the county, do certain ministerial acts, as ex. gr., execute and issue bonds, whose purpose is to advance the concerns of the county; and for that purpose buy, at the place where he is, a new county seal; the Code having authorized the county judge to procure one.</p>

Held: but belonged, on the contrary, to the wife alone, and were her separate property.

The steamer Commerce was proceeding down the Chesapeake Bay, in a southeast course, on an evening of January, 1870; the schooner Seamen trying to sail up in a course about north-northwest.. The night was perfectly calm, and the moon was shining.

The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that ruled that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only protects the legal rights that are associated with federal U.S. citizenship, not those that pertain to state citizenship. Though the decision in the Slaughter-House Cases minimized the impact of the Privileges or Immunities Clause on state law, the Supreme Court would later incorporate the Bill of Rights through substantive due process. Ostensibly seeking to improve sanitary conditions, the Louisiana legislature and the city of New Orleans had established a corporation charged with regulating the slaughterhouse industry.

Bradwell v. State of Illinois, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 130 (1873), was a United States Supreme Court case which ruled that women were not granted the right to practice a profession under the United States Constitution. The case was brought to the court by Myra Bradwell, who sought to be admitted to the bar to practice law in Illinois. The Court ruled that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not include the right to practice a profession as a woman. This court case was a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to sex discrimination in the United States, and it no longer reflects current legal standards as current Title VII Laws restrict employment discrimination based on gender.

Mrs: Mitchell, his widow, became administratrix of his estate. In; 1861- the rebellion -broke out. There were at this time one hundred and sixteen bales of cotton on the farm; and the war being flagrant in Mississippi, the Confederate general ordered all cotton near the river, under penalty of being burnt, to bp removed from it, in order to prevent its capture by the forces of the United States.

Carlisle v. United States, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 147 (1872), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, "The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence." The case has been cited in articles discussing the "culture defense" in criminal law.

The ninth section of the act of July 13-th, 1866, to reduce internal taxation, and to amend the internal revenue laws,* declares, among other things, that there shall be paid monthly on- all sales by commercial brokers of any goods, wares, or merchandise, a tax of one-twentieth of one per cent, on the amount.of said sales, and on or before the tenth day of each month every commercial broker shall make a list or return to the assessor of the district of the gross amount of…

<p>Error to the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.</p>

<p>Error to the District Court for the Middle District of Alabama; in which court, on an information against certain distilled'spirits seized on land, and answer and claim, the court, on motion of the district attorney of the United States, ordered the claim and answer to be stricken from the files; and refusing to' let the claimants either amend the old answer or file a new one, entered a decree condemning the property seized.</p> <p>• To this action of the court the claimants excepted, and brought the question of its propriety here.</p>

Edward Haurick, a citizen of Alabama, in December, 1860, brought two actions of trespass to try title, in the nature of actions of ejectment, in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas, for the reeovery of eleven leagues of land in Falls County, in that State, alleged to have been granted by the proper officers of the State of Coahuila and Texas to one Atanacio de la Serda, and claimed by the plaintiff as owner in fee.

The whole tow of the steamer consisted of thirty canal-boats and two barges, the latter being from 150 to 200 feet astern of the former. The canal-boats were placed in six tiers, each consisting of five boats, the Floating Battery being the starboard boat of the hindmost tier, bringing her the nearest to the west shore. The distance from her to the Cayuga was about 1000 feet.

Held: that although the question whether the sale was nota nullity might, have been presented, yet that the case having been dismissed below for want of jurisdiction, it did not appear that a Federal question had been decided,.much less that it had been decided adversely to the complainant. '2.

being thus: . By the statute law of the State just named, it is enacted, that when an execution has been levied, and a party other than the defendant asserts a claim to the property levied on, -the sheriff', before-proceeding to sell, may require of the plaintiff an indemnifying bond, upon the delivery of which the claimant of the property may execute “ a suspending bond,” the effect of- which is to delay the sale'until the claim thereto can be-adjusted.

<p>Appeal from the Circait Court for the Southern District of'Mississippi; the case being thus:</p> <p>The Commercial Bank of Natchez owning certain property, and among it a dwelling attached to its bankirtg-house, its property was placed, on an application for a forfeiture of its chárter, .in the hands of one Robertson as trustee. Several of the stockholders, represented by á certain Bacon, being dissatisfied with' what was thus- done, filed a bill in the court-below against this Robertson, and áll the property was taken from him and put into the hands of one Ferguson, as receiver. Hereupon, in November, 1857, the receiver was authorized by the court to sell the land's or any part of them upon such terms as he may deem best for the interest of all parties, provided that he shall not sell any of said lands upon a longer credit than one, two, and three years from the time of sale.</p> <p>The order^authorizing the sale adding:</p> <p>“ In all cases he is to retain a lien or take a deed.of trust, on the lands sold.”</p> <p>On the 12th of March, 1860, the receiver sold the dwelling attached to the bank to one Gustavus Calhoun, and on the sa'rne day executed to him a conveyance of the premises sold, reciting in the conveyance that he executed it as receiver, and “ for and in consideration of the sum of nine thousand and five hundred dollars, to him in hand paid by the said Gkustavus Calhoun, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged.” It contained a covenant of warranty against all persons claiming through the receiver. The deed was duly recorded within five days after the sale, and Calhoun entered into and kept possession under it.</p> <p>After the receiver had thus executed his conveyance — that is to say, on the 19th of May, 1860: — the receiver reported that he had “sold the dwelling attached.to the banking-house in Natchez for $9500, and prayed that the same may be confirmed.” He also referred to certain sales of land in Bolivar County, in 1858, in which the purchasers had allowed the lands to be sold for taxes. The eourt ordered that this report, and a report made by a commissioner in the case, be referred to the master in chancery “to examine into and report "upon.the sufficiency and correctness of said reports.”</p> <p>The master, in conformity to this order, made his report on 29th May, 1&60. He stated that he had had the reports under consideration and found them correct, and recommended their confirmation. The last portion of the report of Ferguson, the receiver,. respecting the redemption of lands in Bolivar County, he referred to the court for consideration.</p> <p>At the same term, 1860, the court ordered that the report of the master in chancery be in all things confirmed, reserving for Consideration until the next term the matter referring to the lands in Bolivar County.</p> <p>The reader will have observed that neither in the master’s report of sale nor anywhere else in those proceedings is the name of the person mentioned to whom the sale was made, nor the terms on which it was made, as whether for cash or on credit. And, in point of fact, Calhoun did not pay any cash, but, on the contrary, gaye his promissory note to .the receiver, Ferguson, for the price.</p> <p>Iu this state of.things, and Calhoun being in possession of the property thus bought by him, and occupying it as his d'we(liug, his son-in-law, one Blackburn, was desirous of raising money to carry on the' business of planting, in which he w’as engaged on a plantation owned by Calhoun, his father-in-law.- A firm in New Orleans, Given, Watts & Co., agreed to furnish- it to him upon his own notes, provided these were secured by a mortgage-of real estate of Calhoun. Accordingly, on. the 22d of January, 1867, Blackburn gave the 'firm his notes (three notes for $4000 each, falling .due respectively iu October, November, and December, 1867), and Calhoun and wife executed, on the same day, a mortgage of the property bought, and occupied at the time as above mentioned.' Prior to its execution, Given, Watts & Co., to assure theniselves of the validity.of Calhoun’s title,, caused an inquiry to be instituted; and received from the clerk of the court a certificate that there were, no iucum-brahces. Given,, Watts & Co. sold one of these notes to the Northern Bank of Kentucky, and, becoming bankrupt, the other two passed to their-assignees in bankruptcy.</p> <p>Ciilhotin became insolvent, aiid one Koontz, who had succeeded Ferguson as receiver of the Commercial Bank of Natchez, finding that Calhoun had never paid his note for $9500, now proposed to him to cancel the conveyance that had been made to him. Calhoun agreed .to do this, and thereupon made a deed of the premises to Koontz; after which Koontz applied to the court on an ex parte proceeding and obtained an order reciting the invalidity of the- sale by Ferguson to Calhoun and cancelling the same.</p> <p>In this state of things the-Northern Bank of Kentucky and the assignees of Given, Watts & Co. filed a bill of foreclosure in the court below, against Koontz and also against Calnoun and wife, praying a foreclosure of the mortgage and payment of the three-notes, or of what was due on them. The court, finding the amounts due the complainants respectively, decreed a foreclosure nisi, and ordered Koontz to hold the property subject to payment of the amounts thus found, and enjoined him from setting up any title under the conveyance made to Koontz adverse to the rights of the complainants under the mortgage.. From-this decree Koontz appealed.</p>

The State of Texas had at the times hereinafter named, certain public lands. A general land office was established at the capital of the State for the registration of titles and surveys, and the lands were divided when surveyed into seo tions of six hundred and forty acres each.

Held: on the authority of Cummings v. The Stale of Missouri (4 Wallace, 320), and Ex parte Garland (lb. 333), that the court erred in refusing to receive the petition ; that the aot of February, 1865, in thus depriving the defendants for past misconduct, and without judicial trial,-of an existing right, partook of the nature of a bill of pains and penalties, and was subject to tbre constitutional inhibi- ■' tion against…

<p>1. In the absence of a clear, common conviction on the part of all the members of the court as to the meaning of a direction relating to distillers in one of the internal revenue acts, the court — not holding such construction as in general obligatory on it — expressed itself content to adopt, and did adopt accordingly, what was shown to have been the unvarying practical construction given to the direction by the office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue from the time that the act went into effect; such construction being obviously fair to both the distiller and the government.</p> <p>2. Held accordingly, that under the 80 per cent, clause in the 20th section of the act of July 20th, 1868, the distiller is not liable until a survey in which the tax is assessed has been delivered to him as provided in the 10th section.</p>

Held: 1st. That the' property of the second road was made, by' the act of 1863, exempt from taxation. 2d. That the legislature could not repeal the act of 1863 so as to subject it to taxation.

One William Dickinson, a manufacturer of salt at Kanawha, in that part «of Virginia now called West Virginia, had an agent selling the salt in Tennessee and thereabouts. By direction of Dickinson, this agent took the proceeds, and with them bought a draft of the Planters’ Bank of Tennessee, at Nashville, on the Bank of Virginia, at Richmond; the former bank crediting the latter with the amount. The draft was in this form : $5224.25.

On motion to dismiss a writ of error tq the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois; the'case being thus: The Bankrupt Act of 1867, which by its terms applies to all moneyed, business, or commercial corporations as well as to individuals, gives to the District Courts of the Uuited. States original jurisdiction in all matters and proceedings in bankruptcy. • It enacts by its— • “Section 2.

<p>Appeal from the Supreme Court of Colorado Territory.</p>

Held: do not obtain a preference by such a proceeding, but must proceed according to the provisions of the article relative to the sequestration of the property and effects of corporations for the benefit of creditors. ‡ Viewed in any light the court is of the opinion that neither the decree of the State court appointing the receiver nor the order enlarging his powers, nor any of his proceedings under those powers, afford…

State engaged in the late rebellion.' Such property the. act directed t‘o be sold, and the proceeds to be paid into the Treasury; and any person professing to be the owner, on certain conditions prescribed, was authorized to' prefer his claim to the Court of Claims, and on proof of his ownership, loyalty, &e., to recover the net proceeds of the sale.

Held: accordingly, when, on the 1st of January, 1870, suit was brought on a promissory'.note given in March, 1864, payable in March, 1865, that *315 a law passed in O.ctoher, 1870, which enacted (by one section) that in all suits- pending on any contract made before June 1st, 1865, it should not be lawful for the plaintiff to heve a verdict unless ho made it appear that all taxes chargeable by law on'tbe same had “been…

• In'error to the Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut; the case being thus: In October, 1865, at- Jackson, a station on the Michigan Central Railroad, about seventy-five miles west of Detroit, one Bostwick delivered to the agent of the Michigan Central Railroad Company, for transportation, a quantity of wool consigned to the Mineral Springs Manufacturing Company, at Stafford, Connecticut, and took a receipt for its carriage, on the back of which was a notice that…

■ And the company was aided by the privileges' of pre-emption, at the minimum price, being secured to settlers and occupants of lots by the general enactment of May 23d, 1844,* “for the relief of the citizens of the towns upon the lands of the United States under certain circumstances,” and by a special enactment “for the relief of the citizeus.of Denver,” of the 28th of May, 1864,† whereby .the probate judge of the county was constituted a trustee to enter the land selected…

Held: that while thus walking, he was not travelling by either public or prívale conveyance. Error to the Circuit Court for the Western District of Michigan; the case being this : On the 8th of May, 1869, one Ripley took out an accident policy of insurance on his life, “ good for one day,” for $5000.

On motion to dismiss an appeal from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, the case was thus: A schooner (the Mary Eveline) sailing down Hell Gate (towards New York), came into collision with a sloop (the Ethan Allen) sailing up (towards Connecticut), and sunk' her. The owners of each vessel blamed the officers and crew of the other, and sought respectively relief in admiralty.

On the afternoon of September 20th, 1868, the sloop Ethan Allen and the schooner Mary Eveline came in collision while navigating the East River, near Blackwell’s Island. The sloop was sunk and her cargo was lost. Her owners filed their libel against the schooner and her owners, claiming as damages the value of the sloop and her cargo. The libel was dismissed in the District Court, and the decree was affirmed in the Circuit Court. The libellants appealed to-this court.

On motion to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court' of the State of Louisiaua. Marqueze & Co. brought this suit in the Fourth District Court of the Parish of Orleans, in Louisiana, on the 19th of April, 1866, against Bloom,' Kahn, and Levi, trading as Bloom, Kahn & Co. The petition was fox the recovex’y of money alleged to be due to- the plaintiffs, for certain merchandise sold to the defendants during the first six months of 1861, amounting with interest, to $1045.

Held: that where a person to whom letters of administration on the estate of a nonresident applied, under the statute referred to in the paragraph above, to have a sale of his property, and the court, having jurisdiction of the subject, ordered the sale, it would not be presumed that he was not the public administrator. 8.

Taylor v. Taintor, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 366 (1872), was a United States Supreme Court case. It is commonly credited as having decided that a person to whom a suspect is remanded, such as a bail bondsman, has sweeping rights to recover the suspect.

Held: that the party could not recover damages beyond legal interest, and that there was error on the face of the record. 2.

Held: That these subscribers could not be made liable for such excess. 2. That the proceeding being one in equity and not at law, the “ agreement of record,” though not made part of the record by the pleadings, would bo regarded as evidence. 3. That it proved the transfer and acceptance of the stock by the city. 4.

the State of-Texas for the sale of a.portion of her northwestern territory, five thousand coupon bonds of $1000 each, numbered successively from No. 1 to No. 5000, aud “ redeemable after the 3lst day of December, 1864.” They were made on-their face all payable “ to béare'r,” and declared to be transferable on delivery. The coupons, which extended to December 31st, 1864, and no farther, were equally payable “ to bearer.” These bonds were known as Texas in-. demnity bonds.

Held: that such a sale was not made under duress. 6. Where a subordinate court, which had no jurisdictíondh the case, has given judgment for the plaintiff or defendant, or improperly decreed affirma- : tive relief to a claimant, an appellate court must reverse.

Walker and others brought an action under the civil code Of Kansas to try title to and get possession of a sectiou of lsjnd in Douglas County, Kansas, being “parcel of the lands ceded to the United States by the Shawnee tribe of Indians, by treaty ratified November 2d, 1854,* and lying between the Missouri State line and a line parallel thereto and west of the same thirty miles distant.” The condition of these -lands, as gathered from the provisions of certain Indian…

■ Ribon and several others, bondholders and stockholders in the Mississippi and Missouri Railroad Company, filed a bill against the Chicago, Rock Island, aiid Pacific Railroad Company, to set aside as collusive and fraudulent a sale which had been made of the road of the former-company (one which had numerous stockholders, and also numerous bond creditors, Secured by five different' mortgages) to the latter company, through means of an amicable, foreclosure and decree, in…

Held: that this section did not require that the road to be'aided should be actually built before a county was authorized to mortgage its lands 5 but, contrariwise, that the aid was intended to be given before the road was built, and that the counties giving the aid were expected to take the ordinary risk of the success of the undertaking in which they embarked their property. 2.

Held: were engaged in the business ánd commerce of the country upon the great highway of nations, touching at such ports aud places as their interests demanded.

Held: that the ordinance, in requiring payment for a license to transact in Mobile a business extending beyond the limits of the State of Alabama, was not repugnant to the provision of the Constitution, vesting in the Congress of the United States the power “ to regulate commerce among the several States.” Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama.

Error ,to the Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana; the case being this: • On the outbreak of the rebellion of 1861, both the States of Tennessee and.Louisiana joined in that movement; and while those two States were both under the control of the rebel powers, the Planters’ Bank of Tennessee (at Natchez) remitted to thé Union Bank of Louisiana (at New Orleans) large sums of “ Confederate' treasury notes,” and also forwarded to it drafts and other claims for collection…

for the District of Louisiana; the case being .thus: The act of Congress' of July '2d, 1864,* in addition to that of a prior date, “ to provide for 'the collection of abandoned property and for the prevention of frauds in insurrectionary districts within the United States,” enacted in its 8th section that it should be lawful for the Secretary of the Treasury “ to authorize agents to purchase for the Uuited States any products- of States declaréd in insurrection ... at such…

A statute of the State just named,* passed in October, 1853, and relating to common carriers by means of steamboats, enacts: ' “ Section 16.

At the time of bis death he was a member of a mercantile copartnership, consisting of himself and two persons named Blake and Ward well, and they carried on business at Fort Craig and other places in the Territoi y of New Mexico.

Held: that an injunction by a grantee of the extended term would lay to restrain the use of the four machines, they being in use, after the term of the original patent had expired. *545 Appeal from the Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts; the case being thus: The 18th section of the Patent Act of July 4th, 1836, * after enactiug that patents may in certain cases be’ extended, and that “thereupon the said…

equal payments. ' At the end of the first year the tenants were in arrear $1400, and on the 4th of January, 1868, Marshall commenced an action therefor in the District Court of the parish, and applied for and obtained a writ of provisional seizure (as it 'is called), being the usual process by which a lessor takes possession of his lessee’s property found on the premises, for the purpose of enforcing'his lien thereon.

<p>'Where in ejectment a special verdict has been found and judgment entered on it in the court below, for the plaintiff, which judgment, in an appellate court, is set aside with directions to enter judgment for the defendant, the special verdict cannot, on the plaintiffs bringing a second ejectment upon a subsequently acquired title, be used to establish a fact found in it, as ex. gr. the heirship of one of the parties under whom the plaintiffs claimed.</p>

<p>1. Where improper evidence has been suffered by the court to get before the • jury, it is properly afterwards Withdrawn from it.</p> <p>2. On a suit by the indorsee of a negotiable note which has.no place of payment specified in it, against the indorser who relied oni a.confessedly defective demand on the maker, of payment; that is to say, on a fruitless effort at demand, in the place where the note was dated, but in which place the maker did not live, parol evidence that at the time when the note was drawn, it was agreed between the maker and the indorsee that it should be made payable in the place where the effort to demand payment had been made, and that this place of payment had been omitted by the mistake of the draughtsman — being evidence to vary or qualify the absolute terms of the written contract — would be improperly let in to the jury and would be properly withdrawn.</p>

Circuit Court for Minnesota; the case being thus: The city of St. Paul, desiring to have water-pipes laid along the streets of the city, passed an ordinance authorizing the St. Paul Water Company, an incorporated company, so to lay them.

Babbitt, assignee in bankruptcy of Marks Mendelsonj brought trover against Walbrun & Co. in the court below, to recover the value of a stock of merchandise sold by the bankrupt to one Summerfield, and by the latter to the said defendants.

¿Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

The act also- contained a provision that any of these lands not sold by the company within three years after the final completion of the road, should be liable to be' sold to actual settlers under the pre-emption laws, at a dollar and a quarter per acre, the money to be paid to the1 company.

Held: in the Case first' cited, that Congress having created, as it were, this species of property and conferred upon it its chief value, under the power given in the Constitution to regulate commerce, that no serious doubt could, be. enthrtained but that the same power may be extended to the security and protection of the rights and titles of all persons'dealing therein.

Held: a majority voted in favor of subscription, and the supervisor and clerk professing to act for the township, issued bonds to the amount voted ; but no record of. any kind was ever kept of the election, nor Vas any record or transcript ever transmitted to the county clerk.

On certificate of division from the Circuit Court of Nebraska; the case being thus: An act of the Territorial legislature of Nebraska, approved January 1st, 1861, enacted: “ That the commissioners of any county should have power to submit to the people of any county at any regular or special election, the question whether the county will aid or construct any road; and said commissioners may aid any enterprise designed for the benefit of the county as aforesaid, whenever a…

Held: on an application of the principles just above stated to have beeíi a proper exercise of legislative authority, and the county charged on such orders issued by it, and. given to the road by way of donation.

<p>“O.n the 12th of December, 1871, the attorney of the said Russell produced in open .court the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States, affirming the judgment rendered by this court in favor of said Russell, and the same was ordered by this court to be placed on file.</p> <p>“That the defendants, by voluntarily arguing their appeal in the Supreme Court, after having-made their several motions in the Court of Claims, which they did not proceed to argue in apt time,-and by. allowing the Supreme Court to proceed to judgment thereon while their motions in the Court of Claims were still pending, were guilty of experimenting upon the decisions of both courts, in a manner prejudicial to the ends of public justice; and that the course pursued by them in the Supreme Court while their motions in the Court of Claims were still pending, must be deemed a withdrawal of those motions from the latter court. And that it was against the course of justice for the defendants to subject the clairiiant to the expense and risk of a needless trial in the Supreme Court.”</p>