text: Talk:Watson v. Jones/Opinion of the Court

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Watson v. Jones/Dissent Clifford

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD, with whom concurred Mr. Justice DAVIS, dissenting.

I dissent from the opinion and decree of the court in this case, and inasmuch as the case presents an important question of jurisdiction, I deem it proper to state in a few words the grounds of my dissent.

Before this suit was commenced, a suit in respect to the same subject-matter and substantially between the same parties had been instituted in the Chancery Court of Louisville, by parties representing the same interests as those prosecuted in this case by the appellees, and they obtained a final decree in their favor against the respondents therein, representing the same interests as those defended by the present appellants. Whereupon the respondents in that suit appealed to the Court of Appeals of that State, where the decree of the Chancery Court was in all things reversed and the cause remanded for proper corrective proceedings respecting the possession, control, and use of the property in controversy, and for final judgment in conformity with the opinion of the appellate court.

On the twenty-first of February, 1868, the present appellants filed in the Chancery Court the mandate of the Court of Appeals, together with a copy of the opinion of the appellate court, and moved that an order issue for the restitution of the property and for judgment in conformity with the opinion of the court. Pending the consideration of that motion the defeated party filed an original bill in equity against the then appellants, praying that they be restrained from all further prosecution of their motion for restitution and from all proceedings, by action, suit, or otherwise, to obtain possession or control of the property in controversy, and the chancellor, instead of executing the mandate of the appellate court, granted the injunction prayed by the losing party in the original case. Feeling aggrieved by that proceeding the then appellants applied to the Court of Appeals for a rule to compel the chancellor to carry the mandate of the appellate court into effect, and upon that hearing the Court of Appeals decided that the chancellor had exceeded his jurisdiction in granting the injunction prior to the entry of their mandate, and rendering a final decree in conformity therewith, and peremptorily required him to render a judgment of restitution of the property to the appellants, in so far as they had been deprived thereof by his previous orders.

Those orders of the appellate court were not executed, but the unsuccessful party immediately dismissed their bill of complaint to enjoin the appellants from executing the decree of the Court of Appeals, and on the twenty-first of the same month filed in the Circuit Court of the United States the bill of complaint in this case, before the second mandate of the appellate court commanding the chancellor to execute the first mandate was filed in the subordinate court.

Beyond all question jurisdiction was assumed by the Circuit Court in this case by virtue of the fact that the parties are citizens of different States, in which case the Judiciary Act provides that the Circuit Courts shall have original cognizance concurrent with the several States. Indeed, jurisdiction in the case is claimed solely upon the ground that the Circuit Court of the United States possesses concurrent and co-ordinate jurisdiction with the State court in such a controversy.

In view of these considerations, as more fully set forth in the record and in the opinions given in this case by the Court of Appeals, I am of the opinion that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter in controversy, as there were two courts of common law exercising the same jurisdiction between the same parties in respect to the same subject-matter, within the same territorial limits, and governed by the same laws.

Neither court had any peculiar jurisdiction over the property in question nor of any peculiar right or lien upon it claimed by either party. Originally the State court had the same power with the Circuit Court to hear and decide any and every question that might arise as to the rights of property of either party in the course of the litigation. State courts and Circuit Courts in such cases are courts of concurrent and co-ordinate jurisdiction, in respect to which the principle is that 'whenever property has been seized by an officer of the court, or put in his custody by the process of the court, the property will be considered as in the custody of the court and under its control for the time being, and that no other court has a right to interfere with that possession, unless it be some court which may have a direct supervisory control over the court whose process has first taken possession, or some superior jurisdiction in the premises.' Decided cases asserting that principle and enforcing it are very numerous in the reported decisions of this court, and also in the reported decisions of other courts of the highest respectability.

Remarks to show that the suit in the State court was pending and undisposed of when the bill was filed in the Circuit Court are unnecessary, as the fact is admitted, and in view of that fact I am of the opinion that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of the case.

Being of the opinion that the case ought to be reversed and dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, I do not think it necessary or proper to express any opinion upon the merits of the case.

title: Watson v. Jones/Dissent Clifford


text: Talk:Watson v. Jones/Dissent Clifford

title: Talk:Watson v. Jones/Dissent Clifford


text:
The Mabey (80 U.S. 738)

ON motion. The owners of the Chapman had libelled in the District Court at New York, the steamtug Mabey and the sailing vessel Cooper, which the tug had been towing out to sea, for injuries caused to the Chapman by collision on the way out. The owners of both the tug and sailing vessel appeared in the District Court with their witnesses, but the owners of the tug soon withdrew from court, and gave no evidence in defence of the tug. This course, it appeared, had been done upon a written agreement between the owners of the tug and sailing vessel, that the owner of the tug should take no active part in the conduct of the suit; that no evidence should be offered in behalf of the tug, and that the owners of the sailing vessel would assume the whole defence for both, and would pay whatever damages should be awarded against either or both; for the performance of which agreement the owners of the sailing vessel entered into bond of $10,000 to the owners of the tug, with two sureties, whose solvency was then unquestioned. The District Court decreed heavy damages against both tug and sailing vessel; and an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court, where the decree was affirmed.

The case was now brought here.

Being here, Mr. W. W. Goodrich in behalf of the owners of the tug, moved that a commission issue to take the testimony of certain witnesses named. The grounds of the motion were the fact of the agreement above set forth; that the sureties in the bond had now become insolvent, and that four witnesses whose names were given, and whom it was proposed to examine, were 'material witnesses in behalf of the appellants, without whose testimony they could not safely proceed.' There was no statement of what facts it was, that the persons proposed to be examined could probably prove.

A counter affidavit stated that the answer of the owners of the tug alleged that before taking the sailing vessel in tow, the master of the tug informed the agents of the sailing vessel that it was not safe to proceed to sea in the then condition of the weather and tide, and that the agents told the master to proceed, and that their owners would assume all risks and pay all damages. It represented further that the witnesses in behalf of the tug had been brought into the District Court, and had abundant opportunity to testify, and had been sent away, on the agreement, and because the owners of the tug and sailing vessel 'combined to keep from the knowledge of the court evidence which would have tended more clearly to establish the right of the libellants to recover, and in the hope, by doing so, to throw upon the libellants the whole of the damage;' that the witnesses now proposed to be examined were entirely within the control of the owners of the tug at the hearing in the District Court and that the testimony proposed to be taken was no more important now than it had been then; and that the owners of the tug had not appealed from the decree of the District Court.

Mr. E. C. Benedict opposed the motion, as one very plainly improper to be granted even on the case presented by the party making it.

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

title: The Mabey (80 U.S. 738)


text: Talk:The Mabey (80 U.S. 738)

title: Talk:The Mabey (80 U.S. 738)


text:
The Mabey (80 U.S. 738)/Opinion of the Court

Damages were claimed by the owners of the ship Isaac F. Chapman for injuries which the ship received in a collision that occurred between the ship while she was lying at a dock in the port of New York, and the steamtug R. S. Mabey and the ship Helen R. Cooper, which, at the time of the collision, was in tow of the steamtug, as more fully set forth in the libel filed in the District Court. Serious injury resulted to the ship of the libellants, and they alleged that the steamtug and the ship Helen R. Cooper were both in fault. Separate answers were filed by the claimants of the tug and tow, and both, it seems, made preparation for defence, but before the day for the hearing arrived they entered into the following stipulation, which is an exhibit in the motion before the court. Omitting the names of the parties to the suit and the signatures of the proctors, the stipulation reads as follows:

'It is hereby stipulated by and between the parties representing the claimants of the vessels respondent in the above action, that said ship, Helen R. Cooper, shall and does hereby assume the conduct of the defence, and that all and any judgment ordered against the said vessels, or either of them, shall be assumed and paid by said ship Helen R. Cooper.'

Application for the same purpose as that described in the motion was made to this court by the appellants on a prior occasion during the present term of the court, but it was refused, as no excuse was shown, in the petition or accompanying papers, why the witnesses were not examined either in the District of Circuit Courts, and the court said some excuse should be shown satisfactory to this court for the failure to examine them in the courts below-such as that the evidence was discovered when it was too late to procure such examination, or that the witnesses had been subpoenaed and failed to appear and could not be reached by attachment, and the like.

Commissions for such a purpose cannot be allowed as of course, under the twelfth rule, as it would afford an inducement to parties to keep back their testimony in the subordinate courts, and the effect would be to convert this court into a court of original jurisdiction. Admonished to that effect by the prior decision of this court the parties have filed with the present application an affidavit as a compliance with that requirement. Unsettled, as the practice was prior to that decision, the parties are right in supposing that this court would entertain a second application in the same case.

Governed by these views the court has examined the affidavit and the reasons given why the testimony was not taken prior to the hearings in one of the subordinate courts, but the court is constrained to say that the reasons given are not satisfactory, as they show that the witnesses were in court and that they were not examined because the party now asking for the commission agreed that they would not introduce any testimony in the case, and the affidavit shows that they did not introduce any in the District Court and did not appeal from the decree, and of course they did not and could not introduce any in the Circuit Court, as it is well-settled law that the losing party in the subordinate court cannot be heard in the appellate court in opposition to the decree in the subordinate court unless he himself also appealed from the decree. #fn-s-s Instead of being satisfactory, the reasons set forth in the affidavit why the testimony was not introduced in the trials below, are persuasive and convincing that the motion ought not to be granted. Having accepted the bond of indemnity and failed to make any defence the risk as to the sufficiency of the sureties was upon the present appellants, and the fact that they misjudged or are disappointed in that behalf furnishes no reason for the motion before the court.

MOTION DENIED.


text: Talk:The Mabey (80 U.S. 738)/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:Copyright, Its History And Its Law (1912).djvu/204

 dramatic piece, ready and fit for representation on the stage. Consequently, the author of a novel has the copyright in his book, but he has no playright according to English law." The general principles were best stated in 1874 by Chief Justice Cockburn in Toole v. Young, where Grattan's drama "Glory" was declared not to be an infringement either of Hollingshead's novel "Not above his business," on which it was confessedly founded, nor of the dramatic version made under the title of "Shop" by Hollingshead himself, but never printed or performed and therefore unpublished: "Two persons may dramatize the same novel, for that is common property. It is true that a writer cannot produce and represent a drama, which he has borrowed from a drama written previously by another person; he would then be representing the production of the first dramatist. . . . I wish to guard myself against being supposed to lay down that, if a writer, while dramatizing a novel, takes the incidents, characters, and dialogue of a previous drama founded upon that novel, and reproduces what is in substance identical with the previous drama, there might not be an infringement of the right of the earlier dramatist if the later drama be represented on the stage."

The new British measure remedies this defect by specifically including the sole rights to convert a novel or other non-dramatic work, or an artistic work, into a dramatic work, by way of performance in public or otherwise, and to convert a dramatic work into a novel or other non-dramatic work.

A curious early case was that of Reade v. Conquest in 1862, in which the son of Charles Reade had made and sold to the defendant, who produced it at his theatre, a dramatic version of " It is never too late to mend" in ignorance of the fact that his father had


text:
United States v. Crusell (81 U.S. 1)

APPEAL from the Court of Claims; the case being thus:

The 'Abandoned and Captured Property Act' authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to appoint special agents to receive and collect all abandoned or captured property in any State or Territory in insurrection against the United States, and authorized also the sending of such property to any place of sale within the loyal States, and the sale of it at auction to the highest bidder. And the proceeds thereof,' says the act, 'shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States.' 'The treasurer,' adds the act, shall cause a book of accounts to be kept showing from whom such property was received, and the cost of transportation, and proceeds of the sale thereof.'

The fourth section enacts:

'That all property coming into any of the United States not declared in insurrection as aforesaid, from within any of the States declared in insurrection, through or by any other person than an agent duly appointed under the provisions of this act, or under a lawful clearance by the proper officer of the Treasury Department, shall be confiscated to the use of the government of the United States. And any agent or agents, person or persons, by or through whom such property shall come within the lines of the United States unlawfully as aforesaid, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof, shall be fined in any sum not exceeding $1000, or imprisoned for any time not exceeding one year, or both, at the discretion of the court.'

The sixth section is as follows:

'It shall be the duty of every officer or private of the regular or volunteer forces of the United States, or any officer, sailor, or marine in the naval service of the United States upon the inland waters of the United States, who may take or receive any such abandoned property, from persons in such insurrectionary districts, or have it under his control, to turn the same over to an agent appointed as aforesaid, who shall give a receipt therefor; and in case he shall refuse or neglect so to do, he shall be tried by a court-martial, and shall be dismissed from the service, or, if an officer, reduced to the ranks, or suffer such other punishment as said court shall order with the approval of the President of the United States.'

The act also provides that any person asserting himself to have been owner of any such abandoned property 'may prefer his claim to the proceeds thereof in the Court of Claims, and on proof to the satisfaction of said court of his ownership of said property, of his right to the proceeds thereof, and that he has never given any aid or comfort to the present rebellion, shall receive the residue of such proceeds, after the deduction of any purchase-money which may have been paid, together with the expense of transportation and sale of said property, and any other lawful expenses attending the disposition thereof.'

Under this act one Crusell, a loyal citizen of Georgia, presented his petition to the Court of Claims, claiming the proceeds of 73 bales (about 37,500 lbs.) of cotton which he alleged belonged to him, and had been stored at Atlanta, Georgia, where, on the capture of the place by General Sherman, in September, 1864, it had been seized by the United States, turned over to an agent of the Treasury Department, sold by him, and the net proceeds paid into the Treasury. Owing to the fact, as was testified, that the quartermaster in charge of captured and abandoned property had left Atlanta before the claimant's cotton had been delivered at the depot there, the claimant had not procured a receipt.

The findings of the court showed that a large amount of cotton had been sold and the proceeds thereof paid into the treasury. The question in the case was whether these 73 bales were in fact so included.

They were in the possession of the quartermaster in charge of abandoned and captured property at Atlanta, in October, 1864. This quartermaster in that month shipped to the officer in charge of military railroad transportation, at Nashville, 130,605 pounds of cotton; but whether the cotton of the claimant was included in the shipment was not shown. It seemed, however, that the officer in charge turned over to the treasury agent at Nashville 1382 bales and a large quantity of loose cotton, coming from Atlanta, Chattanooga, and points beyond Chattanooga, in Georgia. The cotton received by this agent was forwarded to the supervising agent at Cincinnati, and sold by him, and the proceeds paid into the treasury.

It was shown that in the month of December, 1864, there was a sale of cotton at Cincinnati, and sundry bales of cotton marked with the claimant's mark were sold. Whether the person conducting the sale was the supervising agent of the Treasury Department did not appear.

The Court of Claims found on this case that the 73 bales of the petitioner had been sold and the proceeds paid into the treasury, and the identity of the several lots of cotton coming from Atlanta having been lost, the court gave the claimant judgment for a pro rata amount of the proceeds of all the cotton seized at that place.

From this decree the United States appealed.

Mr. B. H. Bristow, Solicitor-General, and Mr. C. H. Hill, Assistant Attorney-General, for the appellants, contended that the 73 bales were not sufficiently traced, and that there was no sufficient identification of them; nor any sufficient evidence that the money had been paid into the treasury, and that whether or not the Court of Claims had done wrong to give a pro tanto judgment.

Messrs. Hughes, Denvers, and Peck, contra:

One of two conclusions is inevitable, either that the army and other officers did their duty, or that they committed an offence for which they were liable to be degraded and otherwise punished. The first presumption is a natural one; the last, not one to be made in the face of statutes denouncing fines, penalties, confiscation, imprisonment, degradation, and dismissals from service against every officer or person who should attempt to move this property, except in the authorized manner. The government asks the court to believe that the cotton did not take the only course which under the circumstances it was possible for it to take.

If the cotton was unidentified, the reason was that the quartermaster was absent from Atlanta when it was delivered at the depot, and when it was shipped; and therefore it went forward unidentified on the books of the treasury agent, as did other bales. The pro rata judgment was a right one, in view of the case.

The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

title: United States v. Crusell (81 U.S. 1)


text: Talk:United States v. Crusell (81 U.S. 1)


text:
United States v. Crusell (81 U.S. 1)/Opinion of the Court

Presuming that the officers of the government performed their duty, there can be no doubt that the quartermaster at Atlanta forwarded to the officer in charge of military railroad transportation the cotton of the claimant; and that this officer turned over the cotton to the agent at Nashville, by whom it was forwarded to Cincinnati and sold by the supervising agent there. The presumption in this case is strengthened by the fact that heavy statutory penalties would be incurred by neglect of duty. There is nothing in the case to repel this presumption. If any evidence to this effect exists, it must be contained in the books of the Treasury Department, and these are under the control of the defendant.

We think, therefore, that the conclusion of the Court of Claims, that the proceeds of the 73 bales of cotton belonging to the claimant were paid into the treasury, and that the claimant was entitled to judgment, was right.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

Mr. Justice DAVIS, with whom concurred Mr. Justice SWAYNE and Mr. Justice MILLER, dissenting.


text: Talk:United States v. Crusell (81 U.S. 1)/Opinion of the Court


text:
United States v. Crusell (81 U.S. 1)/Dissent Davis

Mr. Justice DAVIS, with whom concurred Mr. Justice SWAYNE and Mr. Justice MILLER, dissenting.

In my opinion, the burden of proof in this case is on the claimant to show that the money which he seeks to obtain under the Captured and Abandoned Property Act has been paid into the treasury. The court, in its opinion, throws the burden of proof, on this point, on the United States, and on that account I am constrained to dissent from the judgment in the case.


text: Talk:United States v. Crusell (81 U.S. 1)/Dissent Davis


text:
Cockroft v. Vose

MOTION by Mr. E. C. Benedict, to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court of New York, taken under the assumption that the case was within the 25th section of the Judiciary Act; a section abundantly known to most lawyers practicing in this court, but which as it makes the basis of the judgment in this and several cases which follow, is partially copied for the benefit of any who do not at all times recall its phraseology.

'SEC. 25. And be it further enacted, That a final judgment or decree in any suit, in the highest court of law or equity of a State in which a decision in the suit could be had,'Where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is AGAINST their validity;

'Or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of or an authority exercised under any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is IN FAVOR of such their validity;

'Or where is drawn in question the construction of any clause of the Constitution, or of a treaty, or statute of, or commission held under the United States, and the decision is AGAINST the title, right, privilege, or exemption, specially set up or claimed by either party, under such clause of the said Constitution, treaty, statute, or commission, may be re-examined and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States upon a writ of error.'

The case was thus:

The State of New York passed 'An act to provide for the collection of demands against ships and vessels,' and authorizing warrants of attachment and seizure of the vessel, much in the style of admiralty proceedings. Under this act one Vose, professing to have claims against the vessel, had a warrant issued and the vessel seized. For the purpose of discharging the vessel from the custody of the sheriff, and in pursuance of the statute, one Cockroft gave his bond to Vose, whereby he became bound to pay to Vose the amount of all such claims and demands 'as shall have been exhibited, which shall be established to have been subsisting liens' upon the vessel pursuant to the statute above mentioned. On this bond Vose brought the suit below; setting forth in his declaration or petition the warrant, seizure, and giving of the bond sued on; all spoken of as having been made in pursuance of the statute.

The defence, which did not deny in any way the validity of the statute, though it professed not to know more than that there had been a 'pretended seizure,' and a discharge, chiefly relied on the alleged fact that the supplies furnished had not been furnished on the credit of the vessel, but on the credit of the master exclusively. The case was tried upon that issue, and judgment entered in favor of the plaintiffs. From this judgment the defendants appealed to the General Term, by which the judgment was affirmed. From that judgment an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment, and on the remittitur from the Court of Appeals final judgment was entered in the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiffs.

The published opinions of the Court of Appeals showed that the constitutionality of the statute was not raised in the Supreme Court or in the General Term, and was discussed for the first time in the Court of Appeals. It was there argued by counsel that the obligors having given the bond and got the benefits of the statute by having their vessel released, were estopped to deny the validity of the statute under which they took that benefit. In the decision of the Court of Appeals the opinion is expressed that the statute was invalid, as being against the provision of the United States.

Messrs. J. M. Carlisle and C. N. Black, against the motion to dismiss:

The State statute is plainly void, because it infringes upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal courts. Now the face of this record shows that the Court of Appeals sustained the validity of this State statute. What reasons the judges may have assigned in their opinions for what they did is unimportant. The important matter is, that if this judgment is enforced, the obligors in the bond will be compelled to pay a judgment founded upon an unconstitutional and void State statute.

The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court cannot be ousted by a State court assigning reasons for supporting a judgment founded on an unconstitutional statute, that do not in words declare the law constitutional. Does the plaintiff recover under a plainly unconstitutional and void statute? That is the point. When the whole question is before it by the record, this court will look to nothing but the decision simply for or against. On any other principle, State courts, at their option, might oust the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction in this class of writs.

In this particular case the Court of Appeals, while admitting the invalidity of the statute, gives it validity, existence, and effect; an apparently paradoxical condition of things, that can only be relieved from inconsistency by holding that the State court decided in favor of the validity of the statute, irrespective of, or in spite of, its obiter dictum opinion, or in spite of an opinion then rendered by it, that can be treated only as obiter dictum under the circumstances.

Messrs. Benedict and Benedict, contra.

Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Cockroft v. Vose


text: Talk:Cockroft v. Vose

title: Talk:Cockroft v. Vose


text:
Cockroft v. Vose/Opinion of the Court

It does not appear to us that the Court of Appeals in which the case was decided, held the State statute to be valid, and if it did not the jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked to declare it invalid.

The suit before us was an action on a bond given by the owners of the vessel and their sureties to release her when she had been attached in the original proceeding to enforce the lien, and several questions were raised in the defence, none of which seem, from the pleading, or anything else in the record, to have been founded on the invalidity of the statute. One of these questions evidently was whether the credit was given to the owner personally, or to the vessel; and another was whether, after the bond had been given and the vessel released, the obligors in the bond were not estopped to deny the validity of the proceeding in the attachment suit.

Now, if the court decided the case on this latter ground, as it may have done, or on any of the other grounds except the validity of the statute, we have no jurisdiction.

The inference from the condition of the record, that the court did not decide the statute valid, might receive confirmation from the opinion of that court, if we were at liberty to consider it, for it is there held that the statute is invalid for the very reason given here by the plaintiff in error why we should hold it invalid.

On the whole, we do not find, from anything in the record of this case, that the question relied on here was decided against the right claimed by plaintiff in error, and the writ is, therefore,

DISMISSED.

title: Cockroft v. Vose/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Cockroft v. Vose/Opinion of the Court


text:
Bank of West Tennessee v. Citizens' Bank of Louisiana

MOTION by Mr. Edward Janin (Mr. T. J. Durant opposing) to dismiss, for want of jurisdiction, a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, taken under an assumption that the case fell within the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, quoted supra, pp. 5, 6.

Mr. Justice SWAYNE stated the case, and delivered the opinion of the court.


text: Talk:Bank of West Tennessee v. Citizens' Bank of Louisiana


text:
Bank of West Tennessee v. Citizens' Bank of Louisiana/Opinion of the Court

The plaintiff in error brought the suit against the defendant in error in the Fifth District Court of New Orleans, to recover the sum of $93,380, for moneys deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant, and moneys collected by the latter for the former. All the so-called moneys received by the defendant were the notes of the rebel government. The District Court, on the 27th of March, 1867, gave judgment for the plaintiff. The case was thereupon taken by appeal to the Supreme Court of the State. That court, on the 14th of December, 1869, reversed the judgment of the court below, and dismissed the case. In the opinion delivered it was said.

'Under the constitution of 1868 the courts of this State cannot entertain an action based upon transactions in Confederate treasury notes. We think the evidence discloses that this case is founded upon dealings in unlawful curreney, and the court has often refused to lend its aid to transactions reprobated by law.'

The constitution of 1868 was not in existence when the case was decided by the District Court.

The Supreme Court founded its judgment alike upon the constitutional provision and prior adjudications. Those adjudications are numerous and conclusive upon the subject. The constitution only declared a settled pre-existing rule of jurisprudence in that State. The result in this case would have been necessarily the same if the constitution had not contained the provision in question. This brings the case within the authority of Bethel v. Demaret. Upon such a state of facts this court cannot take jurisdiction under the section of the Judiciary Act upon which the writ of error is founded.

CASE DISMISSED.


text: Talk:Bank of West Tennessee v. Citizens' Bank of Louisiana/Opinion of the Court


text:
Palmer v. Marston

MOTION by Mr. W. S. Holman (Mr. E. T. Merrick opposing) to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, taken on the assumption that the case fell within the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, quoted supra, pp. 5, 6.

Mr. Justice SWAYNE stated the case, and delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Palmer v. Marston


text: Talk:Palmer v. Marston

title: Talk:Palmer v. Marston


text:
Palmer v. Marston/Opinion of the Court

Palmer sued Marston in the District Court of the parish of East Feliciana, upon a promissory note made by Marston to J. O. Fuqua, and by him indorsed to Palmer, dated October 1st, 1863, for $1687, and payable one day after date, with interest at the rate of eight per cent. per annum from date until paid. The defendant answered that $1000 of the note had been paid, and that $949 of it was a part of the purchase price of an African negro claimed to be a slave, and that the slave had been freed by sovereign authority, and that hence the note, to the extent of the amount last named, was null and void.

The court held that, 'whilst the law remains as pronounced by the late Supreme Court in the case of Wainwright v. Bridges, and other cases, Fuqua, were he suing to recover the amount of the note, which is the subject of this controversy, would be defeated by this plea of failure of consideration. Therefore, the plaintiff must fail also.' Judgment was given for the defendant. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the State, and that court affirmed the judgment.

In the opinion of the court, as drawn up by one of the judges, it is said:

'The balance of the note in suit in this action was clearly given in renewal of obligations arising from the sale of a slave, and is vitiated by this fact. It cannot be recovered under our jurisprudence, as settled in Wainwright v. Bridges, and the numerous cases which have followed that decision. Under the rule established in the case of Groves v. Clark, it is immaterial whether the plaintiff became a holder before or after maturity. We have been asked by counsel to pass, in this case, upon the validity under the Constitution of the United States of the article 128 of the Louisiana constitution of 1868, which declares that contracts for the sale of persons are null and void, and shall not be enforced by the courts of this State. We do not feel it necessary to do this. The rule, that such contracts will not be enforced by the courts of this State, was established in our jurisprudence in the year 1867. It was firmly settled and repeatedly acted upon before the adoption of the constitution of 1868, and has been invariably adhered to ever since. The question whether this article 128 be valid or invalid as an act of legislation, and in relation to article 10 of the Constitution of the United States, may possess considerable speculative interest, but we do not perceive that it can, in this case, have a practical influence upon the result. For the reasons given it is ordered and adjudged that the judgment appealed from be affirmed with costs.'

It thus appears that the provision of the State constitution upon the subject of slave contracts was in no wise drawn in question. The decision was governed by the settled principles of the jurisprudence of the State. In such cases this court has no power of review. No right was claimed by either party under any State law or the constitution of the State which was resisted upon the ground of repugnancy to the Constitution, or a treaty or law of the United States, the decision having been in favor of the validity of the right so asserted. There is certainly no foundation for such a complaint on the part of the plaintiff in error. In the absence of such a claim and decision we cannot take cognizance of the case. This element, which is indispensable to our jurisdiction, is wanting. Substantially the same question arose in The Bank of West Tennessee v. The Citizens' Bank of Louisiana, heretofore decided. The writ of error was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The same disposition must be made of this case.

WRIT DISMISSED.

title: Palmer v. Marston/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Palmer v. Marston/Opinion of the Court


text:
Sevier v. Haskell

MOTION by Mr. S. W. Williams to dismiss, for want of jurisdiction, a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Arkansas, taken under an assumption that the case fell within the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, quoted supra, pp. 5, 6. The plaintiff in error was Sevier, administrator of Jordan; the defendant in error Haskell, administrator of Smith.

Mr. Justice SWAYNE stated the case, and delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Sevier v. Haskell


text: Talk:Sevier v. Haskell

title: Talk:Sevier v. Haskell


text:
Sevier v. Haskell/Opinion of the Court

The case, so far as it is necessary to state it, was a proceeding in equity to foreclose a mortgage given by the intestate of Sevier to the intestate of Haskell, to secure the payment of four promissory notes therein described, and the accruing interest. The answer set up as a defence that the consideration of the notes was the purchase of eighty-five slaves by Jordan of Smith; that the slaves had since become emancipated and lost to the estate of Jordan, and that the consideration of the notes had thus wholly failed. The Circuit Court, at the May Term, 1867, decreed that the bill should be dismissed and the complainant pay the costs. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the State, and that court, at the December Term, 1867, reversed the decree and remanded the cause to the Circuit Court, with directions to enter a decree for the complainant, which was accordingly done.

The plaintiffs in error applied to the Circuit Court at the November Term, 1868, for an order that all further proceedings upon the decree should be superseded and perpetually stayed, for the reason that, on the 11th day of February, 1868, since the decision of the Supreme Court of the State in the case was made, it was ordained by the constitution of the State then adopted, that all contracts for the sale or purchase of slaves were null and void, and that no court of the State should take cognizance of any suit founded upon such contracts, and that no amount should ever be collected or recovered on any judgment or decree which had been, or should thereafter be, rendered on account of any such contract or obligation. The Circuit Court overruled the application, and the plaintiffs in error excepted. The case was again taken to the Supreme Court of the State and that court affirmed the decision of the lower court.

Where the judgment of a State court is brought into this court for review, to warrant the exercise of the jurisdiction invoked, the case must fall within one of three categories—

(1) There must have been drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of-or an authority exercised under-the United States, and the decision of the State court must have been against the validity of the claim which either is relied upon to maintain; (2) or there must have been drawn in question a statute of, or an authority exercised under, a State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, a law or treaty of the United States, and the decision must have been in favor of the validity of the State law or authority in question; (3) or a right must have been claimed under the Constitution or a treaty or law of, or by virtue of a commission held or authority exercised under the United States; and the decision must have been against the right so claimed.

The case before us is within neither of these classes. Before the State constitution of 1868 was adopted, the Supreme Court must have proceeded upon the general principles of the jurisprudence of the State. Whether in applying those principles that tribunal reached the proper conclusions, cannot be a subject of consideration by this court. We have no authority to enter upon such an inquiry. After the constitution of 1868 was adopted, the plaintiffs in error relied upon that, to annul the decree which had been rendered. The Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the decree, the provision in the State constitution relied upon to the contrary notwithstanding.

Here, again, no Federal question is presented. What considerations controlled the judgment of the court is not disclosed in the record. If it were held, as it well may have been, that the provision in the Federal Constitution which forbids any State to pass a law impairing the obligation of contracts, protects from the operation of the State constitution slave contracts made prior to its adoption, as the contract here in question was sustained and enforced, still no question arose of which this court can take cognizance. The record exhibiting no such question, the motion must prevail.

WRIT DISMISSED.

title: Sevier v. Haskell/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Sevier v. Haskell/Opinion of the Court


text:
Steings v. Franklin County

MOTION by Mr. F. A. Dick (Messrs. Crews and Letcher opposing) to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Missouri; taken on an assumption that the case came within the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, quoted supra, pp. 5, 6.

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Steings v. Franklin County


text: Talk:Steings v. Franklin County

title: Talk:Steings v. Franklin County


text:
Steings v. Franklin County/Opinion of the Court

Jurisdiction may be exercised by this court in three classes of cases where a final judgment or decree in any suit in the highest court of a State in which a decision in the suit could be had, is brought here by virtue of a writ of error to the State court, as authorized to be issued under the act to amend the act to establish the Federal judicial courts.

First. Where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against their validity.

Secondly. Where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of their validity.

Thirdly. Where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is claimed under the Constitution or any treaty or statute of, or commission held, or authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege, or immunity specially set up or claimed by either party under such Constitution, treaty, statute, commission or authority.

Certain taxpayers of the county complained in the State court that the County Court of the county entered into a written agreement with the parties therein named to construct a certain county road and to pay the contractors for the work and materials in constructing the same the several sums and at the rates therein specified; that the County Court agreed to make the payments in the bonds of the county, and that the contractors agreed to accept the bonds of the county in payment of all claims under the contract; that bonds of the county to the amount of two hundred and five thousand dollars were accordingly issued by the County Court, and were, by the authority of the County Court, delivered to the contractors; that the County Court did not, before making the contract, submit the amount of the proposed expenditure to the voters of the county at any election whatever, general or special, at any time or in any manner, as required by the law of the State in such case made and provided.

Complaint is also made that the County Court afterwards, on the second of July, in the same year, passed an order making the bonds transferable by the indorsement of the contractors, and directed that the clerk should indorse the order on the back of the bonds; and that the County Court on the following day also ordered the county clerk to reissue one hundred and eighty-six bonds in substitution of the same number previously delivered, to correct an error in their execution; and also that the County Court, on the sixth of May, in the following year, ordered the county clerk to issue bonds for the purpose of exchanging and taking up all bonds previously issued for the construction of such roads and bridges, whether completed or in the progress of construction, it being understood that all bonds issued prior to that date should be cancelled and destroyed, and that warrants should also issue for the payment of such interest as had accrued to that time, and the charge is that bonds were issued under that order to an amount equal to the whole amount of the bonds held by the contractors and all other holders, amounting in the aggregate, reckoning both issues, to six hundred thousand dollars, and that warrants for the payment of interest to that date, amounting to thirty thousand dollars, were also issued, and yet the complainants charge that the bonds previously issued have never been cancelled, delivered up, or destroyed, but that they remain to this day a charge against the property-holders and taxpayers of the county.

They also charge that the original agreement was, by collusion between the judges of the County Court and the contractors, fraudulently antedated and made to bear a rate of interest greater than the legal rate at the time the agreement was actually executed, and they also charge the fact to be that the road is not made nor the work performed in accordance with the contract and specifications, and that the County Court, or a majority of the judges thereof, acting collusively with the contractors, fraudulently connived at these flagrant violations of the contract to the great injury and oppression of the property-holders and taxpayers of the county.

Other acts equally fraudulent and oppressive are also charged against the respondents in the bill of complaint, and the complainants finally allege that the contract and agreement, and all the orders of the County Court based upon the same or in relation thereto, are without authority of law and contrary to the provisions of the statute applicable in such cases, and that the bonds are fraudulent, null, and void; and they pray that an order may be made declaring that the contract and agreement, and all the orders of the County Court based upon the same or in relation thereto, are null and void and of no effect, and that the parties holding the bonds shall deliver the same up, that the same may be cancelled, annulled, and held for nought, and that an injunction may be issued enjoining and restraining the respondents from negotiating, selling, transferring, or disposing of the bonds, and enjoining and restraining the county and the county treasurer from paying the same, either interest or principal.

Service was made and the respondents appeared and filed an answer, in which they admit that the County Court did not submit the amount of the proposed expenditure to the voters of the county, but they deny that it was required by law that the County Court should do so before making the contract for the construction of the road. They admit that interest was paid as alleged and that the bonds of the county in lieu of those first issued were reissued to the contractors, but they aver that it is not true that bonds of the county were reissued to any other persons, and they deny that the bonds of the county were issued to any greater amount than two hundred and five thousand dollars, or that any greater amount was ever paid to the contractors on account of the road described in the contract; and they also aver that a like amount of bonds in lieu of those reissued were at the same time given up, cancelled, and retired.

Apart from the merits they also deny that the agreement was antedated as alleged, and they also controvert each and every illegal and irregular act set up in the bill, and specifically deny all charges of fraud, collusion, and want of good faith therein alleged and imputed, and they aver that they have complied in all respects with their obligations and duties in the premises.

Amendments were afterwards made to the bill and new parties respondents were added, and the complainants filed the general replication and the parties proceeded to take proofs, and having been fully heard upon the merits, the court made the following finding of facts: That none of the allegations of fraud or collusion are proved, and that no fraud, collusion, or conspiracy existed as charged; that the bonds in question were not, nor were any of them, issued without authority of law, and that the same were and are valid, and were issued under legal authority; that the contractors were not the holders or owners of any of the bonds at the commencement of the suit, and that the defendants who were holders of the bonds at that time became such in good faith for value, and that they were and are innocent holders and unaffected by any irregularity which may have existed in the issue of the bonds. Consequently the court denied the prayer of the complainants for an injunction and dismissed their bill of complaint. Exceptions were filed by the complainants, pursuant to the practice in that court, and the cause was removed into the Supreme Court of the State, where the decree of the subordinate court was in all things affirmed.

Argument to show that the case as exhibited in the pleadings does not present any question cognizable in this court under a writ of error to a State court is hardly necessary, as neither the bill of complaint nor the answer contains any averment which would warrant such a conclusion or which has any tendency to support such a theory. Instead of that the bill is an ordinary bill to set aside a contract alleged to have been executed by the officers of a county without authority of law, and for an injunction to enjoin and restrain the county from paying certain bonds issued under the contract to pay certain contractors for the construction of a certain road described in the contract, and from levying any taxes upon the property-holders of the county for that purpose, because the bonds, as the complainants allege, were issued without authority and contrary to law and through fraud and collusion between the County Court and the contractors; and also to enjoin and restrain the holders of the bonds from transferring or otherwise disposing of the bonds to other parties.

Clearly the pleadings do not present a case where is drawn in question the validity of, or an authority exercised under the United States; or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, any State, on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States; or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is claimed under the Constitution or any treaty or statute of or commission held or authority exercised under the United States; or where is drawn in question the construction of the Constitution or of a treaty or statute of, or commission held under, the United States, as the language is in the corresponding provision of the Judiciary Act. Cases not falling within one or the other of the three classes of cases mentioned are not re-examinable in this court under a writ of error to a State court, as the court possesses no other appellate jurisdiction in such cases than that conferred by those provisions. Apply that rule to the present case and it is as clear as anything in legal investigation can be that the pleadings in the case do not present any question re-examinable in this court under a writ of error to a State court.

Final judgments and decrees only of a State court are re-examinable in this court, and before the court can entertain jurisdiction to re-examine such a judgment or decree, it must appear, either by express averment in the pleadings or by clear and necessary intendment, that some one of the questions mentioned in the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act or in the second section of the act to amend the Judiciary Act was raised in the State court and that it was there decided in the manner therein required to give this court such appellate jurisdiction, or that the State court could not have reached the conclusion it did without deciding the question and in the manner required by those provisions to give this court jurisdiction in the case.

Clear and necessary intendment that the question was raised and must have been decided as claimed, in order to have induced the judgment, is sufficient, but it is not sufficient to show that such a question might have arisen and been applicable to the case, unless it appears in the record that it did arise and was applied by the State court in disposing of the controversy.

Had the record stopped there the case would be free of all difficulty, but it does not stop there, as appears by the return to the certiorari granted by this court. On the contrary, the respondents afterwards moved the court to set aside the decree and to grant a rehearing of the cause for the following reasons, among others not necessary to be mentioned: (1.) That the act of the legislature under which the bonds in controversy were issued is null and void because it is repugnant to the constitution of the State. (2.) That the act in question is null and void because it is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts or to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; and the proposition submitted is that the State law in question is repugnant to both of those provisions.

Much discussion of either proposition is not required, as the court is of the opinion that the decision of a State court in granting or refusing a motion for rehearing in an equity suit is not re-examinable in this court under any writ of error which this court can issue to review the judgment or decree of a State court. Beyond doubt the respective averments in question, if they had been embodied in the bill of complaint, would have been sufficient to raise questions re-examinable in this court, and if it had also appeared that one or both of them had been decided in the manner required to give this court jurisdiction in such a case, or that the State court could not have reached the conclusion it did without deciding the question in that way, it would be plain that the motion to dismiss ought not to be granted. Necessary jurisdictional allegations cannot properly be introduced for the first time on a motion for rehearing, as the motion itself is one addressed to the discretion of the court and one in which the decision of the court in granting or refusing it is not subject to review in an appellate court. Such a motion is not founded in a matter of right, but rests in the sound discretion of the court. Matters resting in the discretion of a subordinate court cannot be assigned for error in an appellate court. Exceptions do not lie to the granting or refusing a new trial in a suit at law, nor will an appeal lie from the Circuit Court to this court from an order of the Circuit Court in granting or refusing a petition for rehearing in an equity suit for the same reason, which is that the motion in the one case, or the petition or motion in the other, is alike addressed to the discretion of the court, as shown by all the decisions in the Federal courts.

Even if it could be admitted that the questions suggested were raised in the case by the motion for rehearing, it certainly does not appear that either of them was decided in a way to give this court jurisdiction, as it is quite obvious that the motion may have been denied upon grounds altogether distinct from any question which is re-examinable in this court. All the information the record contains upon the subject is that the motion was subsequently overruled, unaccompanied by any statement as to the grounds of the decision, but it is quite clear that it may have been denied because that objection to the bonds was not made in the bill of complaint, or because the subsequent act of the legislature confirmed the doings of the County Court under the prior act, or because the court was of the opinion that the subsequent acts of the County Court or other officers estopped the county from setting up that defence to the bonds in the hands of innocent holders, or for many other reasons which might be suggested, wholly irrespective of the questions which it is supposed may be re-examined in this court. Suppose, therefore, it does appear that one or more of the questions which give jurisdiction under such a writ of error was presented in the motion for rehearing, and that such a question may properly be presented in such a motion, still the motion to dismiss much prevail in this case, because the record shows that the motion might have been denied upon other grounds, and it does not appear, even if those questions did arise in the case, that either of them was decided by the State court, or that the supposed erroneous rule was applied by the State court in disposing of the controversy.

Viewed in any light the case fails to show that this court has any jurisdiction of the controversy, and the writ of error is

DISMISSED FOR THE WANT OF JURISDICTION.


text: Talk:Steings v. Franklin County/Opinion of the Court


text:
Kennebec Railroad v. Portland Railroad

MOTION by Mr. Artemas Libbey (Mr. A. G. Stinchfield opposing) to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Maine; taken on an assumption that the case fell within the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, quoted supra, 5-6.

This motion had been delayed for some time by an effort on the part of the plaintiff in error to have the record so amended as to show that the State court decided against it one of the questions necessary to give this court jurisdiction; and to obviate this difficulty it was agreed by the parties here that the opinion of that court, delivered at the decision of the case, might be considered as though it were a part of the record.

The suit was a bill in chancery, brought by the Kennebec and Portland Railroad Company against the Portland and Kennebec Railroad Company, asserting the right to redeem the railroad and its appurtenances, which had passed from the former to the latter under what was supposed to be a foreclosure of a mortgage.

The plaintiff set up several grounds for this right to redeem, and he now alleged that one of the principal questions in the case was, that the law under which the foreclosure was had was passed after the mortgage was executed, and that the method of foreclosure prescribed by that statute impaired the obligation of the contract of mortgage, and was, therefore, void by the Constitution of the United States. And though it did not appear clearly from the pleadings or decree, or other proceedings in the case, that this question was involved, it appeared nevertheless that the question was discussed in one part of the opinion of the court, and that the court was of the opinion that the statute did not impair the obligation of the contract. The mortgage was made in 1852. The statute referred to was passed in 1857, and the foreclosure complained of was had shortly after. It appeared at the same time, however, in another part of the opinion, which was a very long one, covering thirty-three 8vo. pages, each much larger than those of these reports, and in a smaller type (long primer) than the body of these books is printed in-a part not referred to in any way by the plaintiff in error-that the court founded its judgment upon the ground that the foreclosure was valid, because the method which was followed conformed exactly to the mode of foreclosure authorized when the contract was made, by the then laws.

Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Kennebec Railroad v. Portland Railroad


text: Talk:Kennebec Railroad v. Portland Railroad


text:
Kennebec Railroad v. Portland Railroad/Opinion of the Court

It has been repeatedly decided by this court that the opinion is no part of the record, and it is only by agreement of counsel and consent of the court that it can be looked into for such purpose. As the record, without the opinion, does not show that such a question was decided, we have examined the opinion with care, and have felt bound to look to the whole of it, as well as that part of it relied on by the plaintiff in error; and though the matter which the plaintiff now alleges was one of the principal questions in the case-to wit, that the law under which the foreclosure was had was passed after the mortgage was executed, and that the method of foreclosure prescribed by that statute impaired the obligation of the contract of mortgage, and was, therefore, void by the Constitution of the United States-does not clearly appear from the pleadings, or the decree, or any other proceedings in the case, yet it does appear that the question was discussed in the opinion of the court, and that the court was of the opinion that the statute did not impair the obligation of the contract.

If this were all of the case we should undoubtedly be bound in this court to inquire whether the act of 1857 did, as construed by the court, impair the obligation of the contract.

But a full examination of the opinion of the court shows that its judgment was based upon the ground that the foreclosure was valid, without reference to the statute of 1857, because the method pursued was in strict conformity to the mode of foreclosure authorized, when the contract was made, by the laws then in existence.

Now, if the State court was right in their view of the law as it stood when the contract was made, it is obvious that the mere fact that a new law was made does not impair the obligation of the contract. And it is also clear that this court cannot inquire whether the Supreme Court of Maine was right in that opinion.

Here is, therefore, a clear case of a sufficient ground on which the validity of the decree of the State court could rest even if it had been in error as to the effect of the act of 1857 in impairing the obligation of the contract. And when there is such distinct and sufficient ground for the support of the judgment of the State court we cannot take jurisdiction, because we could not reverse the case though the Federal question was decided, erroneously in the court below, against the plaintiff in error. #fn-s-s

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.


text: Talk:Kennebec Railroad v. Portland Railroad/Opinion of the Court


text:
Bartemeyer v. Iowa (81 U.S. 26)

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa; the case being thus:

The 25th section of the Judiciary Act, quoted supra, p. 5-6, which gives a right to this court to re-examine, in certain cases specified, the final judgment or decree of any suit in the highest court of law or equity in which a decision in the suit could be had, says that the same.

'May be re-examined, and reversed or affirmed, in the Supreme Court of the United States, upon a writ of error, the citation being signed by the chief justice, or judge, or chancellor of the court rendering or passing the judgment or decree complained of; or by a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.'

This statute being in force, one Bartemeyer sought to bring here, under the 25th section thus referred to, of the Judiciary Act, a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of Iowa. That court is composed of a chief justice and three associates. The writ was allowed by one of these last. The case, in this court, was submitted on printed briefs, in advance of its regular call, by Mr. W. T. Dittoe, for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. H. O.'Commor, contra; no objection being taken by the latter to the fact that the writ was not signed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Iowa; and the case being argued in the briefs on merits.

Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Bartemeyer v. Iowa (81 U.S. 26)


text: Talk:Bartemeyer v. Iowa (81 U.S. 26)

title: Talk:Bartemeyer v. Iowa (81 U.S. 26)


text:
Bartemeyer v. Iowa (81 U.S. 26)/Opinion of the Court

This case is submitted to us on printed argument. In this class of cases the court has been in the habit of examining the record to see if it has jurisdiction whether the question is raised by counsel or not; and the case before us we find ourselves compelled to dismiss, because there is no proper allowance of the writ of error.

Writs of error to the Circuit Court, under the 22d section of the Judiciary Act, issue as a matter of course, and can be obtained from the clerk of the Circuit Court, and, when filed in his office by the party, are duly served. But writs of error to the State courts can only issue when one of the questions mentioned in the 25th section of that act was decided by the court to which the writ is directed, and in order that there may be some security that such a question was decided in the case, the statute requires that the citation must be signed by the chief justice, or judge, or chancellor of the court rendering or passing the judgment or decree complained of, or by a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. It has been the settled doctrine of this court that a writ of error to a State court must be allowed by one of the judges above mentioned, or it will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and the case before us raises the question whether the writ has been allowed by a judge authorized to do so.

The Supreme Court of Iowa, which rendered the judgment complained of, is composed of a chief justice and three associate justices, and this writ is allowed by one of the associate justices.

We are of opinion that the act of Congress requires that, when there is a court so composed, the writ can only be allowed by the chief justice of that court, or by a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. In case of a writ to a court composed of a single judge or chancellor, the writ may be allowed by that judge or chancellor, or by a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The result of this construction of the statute is that the associate justice of the Supreme Court of Iowa who allowed the present writ had no authority to do so, and it is accordingly

DISMISSED.

Mr. Justice SWAYNE, with whom concurred the CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice BRADLEY, dissenting.


text: Talk:Bartemeyer v. Iowa (81 U.S. 26)/Opinion of the Court


text:
Bartemeyer v. Iowa (81 U.S. 26)/Dissent Swayne

Mr. Justice SWAYNE, with whom concurred the CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice BRADLEY, dissenting.

I dissent from the opinion just read. The objection was not taken by the counsel for the defendant in error. The writ of error was allowed by an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the State-the court by which the alleged error was committed. This, I think, was sufficient. In my judgment the construction given to the provision in question, of the statute, is unwarrantably narrow.


text: Talk:Bartemeyer v. Iowa (81 U.S. 26)/Dissent Swayne


text:
Ward v. United States (81 U.S. 28)

IN error to the Circuit Court for the District of Michigan.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by the United States against one Ward to recover the sum of $45,000-so much money had and received by the defendant to the use of the plaintiffs.

The whole of the testimony was embraced in a bill of exceptions.

The facts out of which the implied promise was supposed by the United States to arise were thus: In the years 1856 and 1857 the Detroit and Milwaukee Railway Company were building their road, and were in an embarrassed condition, in which it became important to them to obtain the delivery of their iron rails by giving rewarehousing bonds with surety. To obtain acceptable sureties they offered to pay a large compensation for the use of the names of responsible persons, and in that way the defendant became surety on numerous bonds of the corporation, given to the plaintiffs at various times, amounting to over $90,000. This railway company, while these bonds were unpaid, was sold out, with all its property and franchises, and was purchased by a new organization under the laws of Michigan, which took the name of the Detroit and Milwaukee Railroad Company, and this latter company, in the process of transmutation, made or recognized a lien on the road and other property in favor of the United States for the whole or a part of the debt evidenced by these bonds, but denied any liability on the part of the corporation for those bonds; and it seemed probable that both the defendant and the agents of the United States were ignorant of the existence of this lien until after a compromise (hereafter to be mentioned) of the bonds. At this stage of the proceedings the defendant was the only solvent surety, and he insisted that he was discharged by the dealing of the plaintiffs with his principals. In this state of things the bonds were placed in the hands of the District Attorney of the United States for suit.

All this appeared from a stipulation entered into between the parties to the suit, and 'given in evidence on the trial by the counsel of the plaintiff to prove the issue on its part.' The paper so given in evidence thus began:

'It is stipulated by counsel for the defendant that the following statements are facts, and that the same may be admitted in evidence upon the trial of this cause on the part of the plaintiffs.'

Among these statements was this one:

'That in April, 1863, the board of directors of said railroad company was applied to by the defendant verbally to make a proposition of compromise of said bonds, which was put in writing by the president, on the 14th day of May, as follows:

DETROIT AND MILWAUKEE RAILROAD CO., DETROIT, May 14th, 1863.

CAPTAIN E. B. WARD.

MY DEAR SIR: Referring to the conversation we have had on the subject of the duty bonds due the United States, I am authorized to say that if you can precure the settlement and cancelling of them for a sum not exceeding $80,000 currency, that sum to include your services and any claim you may have against the company on account of those bonds, this company is ready to pay, and will pay that sum; one-half on your making the arrangement with the government, and the other half within thirty days thereafter. This offer, however, not to be considered as waiving any defence the company has to said bonds and claims.

Yours truly,

C. C. TROWBRIDGE, President.

'And that subsequently, in April, said board did verbally make the said defendant the said proposition.'

The plaintiffs also introduced as a witness, Trowbridge (the party signing the proposition above set out), and he testified that though he had not heard the first conversation between the board and defendant, he afterwards heard of it from Mr. Brydges, managing director, or from Mr. Emmons, counsel for the company, and that after this and upon reducing it to writing, in answer to the question of the defendant, as to what the board had decided as to his proposition, he repeated it orally to the defendant as he understood it, and as so stated, and as he understood it, it was fully expressed in the letter of May 14th. Trowbridge had become president of the company during these transactions.

After his interview, above mentioned, with the directors of the company, Ward had a conference with the District Attorney of the United States, in which, while denying his liability, he offered to pay $35,000 in full for the delivery of the bonds on his own account, whether the company did or did not furnish the money, as he hoped they would; saying, 'that the company was apt to be behind when money was to be paid out.' This offer was afterwards accepted, and the $35,000 was paid and the bonds delivered to Ward.

It was conceded as part of the case that the agents of the United States had no knowledge of the offer of the company to pay the $80,000 when Ward made his proposition, nor until after the bonds were delivered and the $35,000 paid and accepted as a compromise; and further conceded that Ward received the $80,000, and had part of it, or all, in his hands when the compromise was finally accepted.

The District Attorney of the United States becoming acquainted with what had passed between Ward and the company, and especially with the proposition about the $80,000, demanded the sum of $45,000 (the difference between this sum just named and the $35,000 paid), alleging that it had been paid to Ward for the purpose of being delivered to the government, on a compromise of their claim against him and the road. Ward, insisting that he was under no sort of obligation to pay any sum to the government, as the compromise had been fair, stated nevertheless, that since making the compromise he had learned of the making or recognition by the new company of the lien on the road and other property in favor of the United States for the debt evidenced by the bonds, and as that might have put the claim of the government on a better basis than it stood before, he was willing to pay over a check for $22,028. He did accordingly pay it over to the government agent, but before it was presented at bank, stopped the payment of it. At the time when the check was given, Ward said that in giving it he was doing better by the government than he was doing by himself; that the government were getting about 75 per cent. on their claim, while he was getting only some 55 per cent. on what he claimed.

It was upon this state of facts mainly that the United States asserted that the entire $80,000 was money had and received by Ward to their use, and sued for the $45,000 not paid over.

The defendant's counsel requested an instruction to the jury that there was no evidence from which they could infer any other contract between the defendant and the railroad company concerning this $80,000 than the one found in the written proposition. The learned judge refused, however, this request, and charged the jury that there was evidence tending to show that the written proposition of May 14th, 1863, did not fully evidence the terms made to the defendant by the railroad company in April, when he made the proposition of compromise to the district attorney, and added:

'I do not deem it necessary or expedient to say what the legal effect of that proposition is, as if, in your opinion, it is but a partial expression of the arrangement, or is different from the oral arrangement of April, a construction would only tend to complicate your inquiries.'

The jury were also told that it was for them to find what the arrangement or proposition was between the railroad company and the defendant in reference to a compromise of these bonds, and whether there was any other different proposition than that reduced to writing May 14th, 1863, or whether that evidenced the precise terms of the arrangement between the company and defendant when the latter opened negotiations with the district attorney. They were told also that upon their finding in that respect would depend their verdict.

There were several other prayers for instruction asked by the defendant's counsel and refused by the court, on which error was assigned; among them these:

'That the proposition of May 14th did not constitute the defendant the agent of the company to pay over to the plaintiff the sum of $80,000, or any given sum, but that under it he was at liberty to make any arrangement he saw fit with the plaintiffs for a settlement and cancellation of the bonds held by them.

'That if the jury find that said $80,000 was paid to the defendant by the railroad company under the said proposition, the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any portion of the money thus paid to him, as in such case it was not paid to the defendant for the use of the plaintiffs, but to pay him in full for his own services and claims, and for procuring the settlement and cancelling of the bonds held by the plaintiffs, and for the delivery of the same to the railroad company.

'That even if the jury find that the defendant was guilty of either fraudulent disclosures or concealments in his negotiations with the plaintiff and thereby obtained the compromise in question, the plaintiff cannot recover in this action, unless they find under the charge of the court that the whole $80,000 was specifically paid to the defendant to pay the plaintiff.'

But the court refused to give any of these instructions. It charged, also,

'That the defendant Ward was in conscience and equity bound under the circumstances of the interview, when he offered $35,000 in the compromise to the attorney of the government to disclose whatever information he possessed, not accessible alike to both parties, which would materially affect or influence the decision of the government in coming to a conclusion upon the offer of $35,000, so that if he misrepresented or concealed any material fact which the government ought to have been informed of, and thereby obtained a surrender of the bonds for a less sum than would have been demanded had the government been fully advised, the government is not bound to abide by the settlement.'

Verdict and judgment having been given for the United States for the $45,000 claimed, with interest, the defendant brought the case here.

Messrs. C. J. Walker and G. F. Edmunds, for the plaintiff in error:

1. There was no evidence tending in the least degree to prove that the $80,000 was paid to defendant under any other proposition or arrangement than the written one of May 14th, 1863.

There is not a scintilla of evidence that tends to show that the original verbal proposition differed from the written one. It was the proposition of compromise of the bonds which was put in writing by Trowbridge, the president, on the 14th of May, for which the defendant verbally applied in April, and no other or different one, and it was the said proposition that was embodied in the written proposition, which the board verbally made to the defendant subsequently to his application for the proposition from the company.

Whether there was evidence tending to prove that the original verbal proposition was different from the written proposition was a question of vital importance. This, under the charge of the court, was the hinge upon which the controversy turned. And the refusal to charge as requested, and the charge as given, substituted conjecture for deduction, and could hardly fail to mislead and confuse the jury.

But whatever may have been the character of the verbal proposition made before the money was paid over, there was no evidence tending to show that it was actually paid over to defendant upon any other proposition than that of May 14th, or for any other purpose than that mentioned therein.

2. The court erred in refusing to give any construction to the written proposition or contract of May 14th.

According to the very theory of the charge of the court, the jury were at liberty to, and might well have found, that the proposition or arrangement under which the defendant received the $80,000, was the written one of May 14th. On that hypothesis it was clearly the duty of the court to give construction to this written instrument. There was vital error in refusing to give such construction. It left the jury to give any construction they saw fit to this most important instrument, upon which the rights of the parties turned.

3. The defendant was entitled to the instructions that he asked as to the meaning of the proposition of May 4th.

The instrument is to be read in the light of surrounding circumstances. A compromise was contemplated, not of one claim, but of two; the claims both of the defendant and of the United States. To effect this compromise the company were willing to pay $80,000, and they proposed to the defendant that if he would discharge his own claim and procure a settlement and cancellation of that of the plaintiffs, they would pay him $80,000. He was at liberty to make the best bargain with the plaintiffs that he could; to pay them in cash or to get time, or to pay in anything else that the plaintiffs would receive. All that the interests of the company required was the discharge of the two claims. The $80,000 was to be paid in one entire sum for the double purpose; not a part, proportionate or otherwise, to apply on the claim of each. They may have expected that it would have cost the defendant more than it did to take up the bonds held by the plaintiff, but that expectation, if proved, would have nothing to do with the construction of the paper. That left him at liberty to make the best bargain he could with the plaintiffs, and he was to have for himself all that remained, were it more or less.

Mr. G. H. Williams, Attorney-General, and Mr. B. H. Bristow, Solicitor-General, contra:

1. There was nothing which would have justified the court in instructing the jury, as requested, that the evidence tended to show that the money was paid by the company under the written proposition of May 14th. On the contrary, the evidence rather tended to show that the verbal proposition, made by the board of directors in April, was in reality the one under which it was paid. Trowbridge, who reduced the proposition to writing in the form of a letter addressed to the defendant, testified that he heard nothing of the defendant's application to the company until after it occurred, and that his first information respecting the proposition made to the defendant came from the managing director, or from the company's attorney; that after receiving this information, and before writing his letter, he, in response to an inquiry from defendant, repeated orally to the latter the proposition as he understood it, and that the proposition as he understood it was fully expressed in said letter. The verbal proposition was the one upon which the defendant acted in treating with the plaintiff's attorney for the compromise, and which the defendant must be presumed from his conduct to have relied upon, and there is no evidence that it was superseded by any other; for the written proposition of May 14th was not put forth as an independent proposition, designed to take the place of the previous verbal proposition, but merely as a memorial of the latter as it was understood by the writer.

The whole case indicates, indeed, that the written proposition was an afterthought; a contrivance to conceal an irregular transaction. The claim which really disturbed the company was not the defendant's but that of the government, and to settle it the $80,000 was given to Ward. Having by his fraudulent concealments got them to take less than half the sum, he adroitly gets the written letter in order that he may apply the balance to his own use.

2. If this was all so, there was no need of the court giving any construction to the letter of May 14th. But if there had been such need, the requests of the defendant, on this subject, should not have been granted; for the view taken by him of the meaning of the contract-on an assumption of which meaning as true, the requests for instruction were founded-was an erroneous view.

What the defendant undertook to bring about, and actually succeeded in bringing about, was a compromise-not as between himself and the company, nor as between himself and the plaintiff, but as between the company and the plaintiff. In this affair he was their common negotiator, the gobetween or mutual agent of both parties. There was, considering the nature of the undertaking, no incompatibility in the office thus assumed by him. There existed, then, such a fiduciary relation between the plaintiff and the defendant as to devolve upon the latter the obligation of making a frank and full disclosure of any fact which might influence the judgment of the former in making the compromise.

From this point of view, it appears that there was no error in rejecting the instructions requested, as to the construction of the proposition of May 14th.

Mr. Justice MILLER (having stated the case) delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Ward v. United States (81 U.S. 28)


text: Talk:Ward v. United States (81 U.S. 28)

title: Talk:Ward v. United States (81 U.S. 28)


text:
Ward v. United States (81 U.S. 28)/Opinion of the Court

The whole of the testimony is embraced in a bill of exceptions, not long, and the questions to be decided here arise out of the charge of the court to the jury and its refusal to give instructions asked by the defendant.

It is quite clear that the court charged the jury that there was evidence of a verbal contract differing from the one in writing; that they might infer that the verbal contract was such that defendant would be held in law to be a bailee for the United States as to the whole $80,000, and designedly left the impression that this was so clear that it was unnecessary for him to instruct them as to the legal effect of the written contract on the rights of the parties.

Now, as all the testimony is in the bill of exceptions, and as the plaintiffs read this written contract as part of their case, we should be able to discern some evidence on which the jury could find not only that there was a verbal contract but that it differed from the written one, and that it showed that the defendant received the entire $80,000 to the use of the United States; for if this was not so the verbal contract was insufficient to authorize the verdict. We have not been able to find in the bill of exceptions anything which justified this charge of the court.

It is clear from the paper given in evidence by the plaintiffs, and from the statement which it contains,-and which it stipulates are facts which may be admitted in evidence upon the trial of this cause on the part of plaintiffs,-that the plaintiffs themselves have shown by their own testimony that the proposition which the defendant asked the railroad company to make and which they did make verbally in April is the proposition and the same proposition which was reduced to writing by Trowbridge, the president, on the 14th May thereafter. The writing refers to the previous conversation, and there is no attempt to conceal the fact that the proposition was made at a previous time verbally.

Now the plaintiffs not only introduced the statement above alluded to, but they proved by Trowbridge, their own witness, as part of their case, that the verbal proposition of April was identical with the written proposition which they had introduced.

How can they be permitted to contradict their own witness and discredit their own written testimony, consistently with the rules of evidence?

But if they could, we have searched in vain for any evidence which varies in the slightest degree that which we have cited. It is in fact all that there is on that subject. It has been argued here, as it probably was before the jury, that the written proposition was gotten up after the fact to cover up a fraud; that in fact Ward was given the $80,000 for payment to the United States alone without reference to his own claim on the company, and having concealed this fact and made a better compromise than was expected, he had this paper made out to include his own claim to give color to a fraud. But of this there is nothing but the merest suspicion of counsel. No witness has testified that the agreement of April was such as is here supposed, or that it differed from the writing of May 14th. The plaintiffs themselves have proved that they were identical. It would be a total disregard of all rules of evidence to allow them to go to the jury with an argument founded on mere suspicion, a suspicion contradicted by their own evidence, and then have the court charge that there was in the testimony a foundation for this suspicion, a foundation so strong as to render a construction of the only real proposition which was proved, useless and embarrassing to them.

And if it could for any reason be conjectured that the verbal proposal differed from the one made in writing, there is nothing to show what that difference was, and whether it might not have been even more favorable to the defendant than the one produced in writing. The jury were left by the court, and in fact told to disregard the facts which were proved, and indulge in the vagaries of their imagination, in this the turning-point of the case.

Now, it is undeniable that Ward made a very enormous profit in the transaction, and that he availed himself of a knowledge of facts unknown to the officers of the government, in a manner which was well calculated to prejudice the jury against his case, but this was no reason why the court should authorize them to indulge this prejudice by a disregard of the established principles of the law of evidence.

We are, therefore, of opinion that the Circuit Court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that there was no such evidence, and in charging them that there was.

There were several other prayers for instruction asked by the defendant's counsel and refused by the court, on which error is assigned and which we do not deem necessary to notice further than this: that some of the prayers seemed to require a construction of the written proposition found in the record.

Whether the specific prayers of the defendant's counsel were such as should have been given or refused, we are of opinion that it was the duty of the court to have given the jury a construction of that instrument, and as this duty will probably arise, and the interpretation of the writing become an important element of a new trial, we will consider it now.

The evidence makes it pretty clear that the original corporation, the principal in the warehouse bonds, was also indebted to the defendant in a considerable amount, which appears to have never been liquidated. The corporation whose directors made the proposition to Ward, while it denied a direct liability either to him or to the United States, found a lien on their property which made them desire the settlement of both these claims. These facts are undisputed, and in view of them, and of the other fact that Ward was probably liable to the government for the full amount unpaid on the bonds, we are to determine what those directors meant.

The first and important element of their proposal is that 'we will pay $80,000 on account of these bonds if you can procure a settlement and cancelling of them for a sum not exceeding that amount.' The second branch of it is that this sum must include 'your services in making this settlement, and any claim you may have against the company on account of the bonds. When this arrangement is made the company is ready to pay half that sum, and the other half in thirty days thereafter.'

Is this a proposition to pay Ward $80,000 if he procures a settlement of both demands, leaving him at liberty to keep as much or as little of it as he chose, provided he effected their purpose? Or is it a proposal to pay generally the $80,000 on the two demands, provided it be accepted in full satisfaction of both?

The language of the proposition is that they will pay that sum for a settlement of both claims. It does not say that they will pay it to Ward, but will pay that sum on account of these two demands. Ward had first called on them to do something in the matter. This was their response. Without entering into any further verbal criticism of the language of the instrument, but looking to the relations of Ward to the government, and to the railroad company which made the proposal, we think that its true construction is, that the $80,000 was to be paid in settlement of the claims of the government on the bonds, and of Ward's claim for becoming surety, and a fair compensation for his services in obtaining the compromise with the government.

With this construction of the instrument-the only evidence before the jury of the terms on which defendant received the money it should have been left to them to ascertain how much was due the plaintiffs on account of the bonds when the proposition was made, how much was due the defendant for becoming surety for the railroad company, and what was a fair compensation for his services in effecting the compromise with the United States.

These facts being ascertained, they should have been directed to apportion the $80,000 between the plaintiffs and the defendant, according to the amounts thus ascertained as due to each, and make this the foundation of their verdict, deducting from the proportion of the $80,000 falling to the United States the $35,000 paid them by the defendant.

JUDGMENT REVERSED, AND A NEW TRIAL AWARDED.

Mr. Justice BRADLEY, with whom concurred Justices CLIFFORD and DAVIS, dissenting.


text: Talk:Ward v. United States (81 U.S. 28)/Opinion of the Court


text:
Ward v. United States (81 U.S. 28)/Dissent Bradley

Mr. Justice BRADLEY, with whom concurred Justices CLIFFORD and DAVIS, dissenting.

I dissent from the opinion of the court in this case. It seems to me that the charge of the judge to the jury was correct. The defendant was surety for the Detroit and Milwaukee Railroad Company on their rewarehousing bonds, given to secure duties on railroad iron, for an amount admitted to be $76,000, besides interest. The property of the company was sold under mortgages, and a new company was formed by the purchasers, who purchased under a stipulation to recognize and pay all sums due the Federal government for duties upon railroad iron which, it was admitted, then amounted to $94,000. The purchasers, after organization, gave a mortgage in November, 1860, to secure the payment, amongst other things, of the duties owing to the government of the United States, so that the new company assumed the payment of the duties in question. But their assumption was not communicated to the officers of the government, and was not known by them. In April, 1863, Ward, the plaintiff in error, urged upon the new company to settle this claim, and also a claim which he had, by way of compensation for becoming surety. The board of directors verbally made him a proposition, afterwards put in writing, to the effect that if he could procure the settlement and cancellation of the bonds for a sum not exceeding eighty thousand dollars currency (that sum to include his services and any claim he had), they would pay that sum-one-half on his making the arrangement, the other half within thirty days. Thereupon Ward had an interview with the district attorney, and after dilating upon the difficulties which would be met with in collecting the money, the defences which the company had against the claim, &c., said that he had been urging the directors to do something in relation to the bonds; that he thought they were going to have some money that could be applied to this purpose, and that they would do something in relation thereto. He then offered $35,000 in full for the bonds, saying that whether the company did or did not furnish any money, as he expected they would, he would pay that sum out of his own funds, and that the company was apt to be behind when money was to be paid out. He never said one word about the offer of the company to pay the $80,000, and yet he was the surety, and was seeking to get up obligations that were his own as well as the company's. Under these representations and this suppression of the facts, the district attorney was induced to recommend the offer to the acceptance of the department, and on the 24th of July, 1863, Ward paid the $35,000, got possession of the bonds, and the next day delivered them to the company and received from it the $80,000 which had been offered. Afterwards, in February, 1864, when the district attorney had discovered the deception, and demanded the balance of $45,000, Ward offered him a check for $22,000, on the plea that when the compromise was made he did not know that the company had provided for the government claim in their mortgage of November, 1860.

Upon this state of facts the government claimed that the whole $80,000 was received for their use.

A singular feature of the case is, that the offer of the company, made to Ward in April, was not put into writing until the 14th of May, 1863, and was then written out at the request of Ward, by Trowbridge, an officer of the railroad company, who was not present when the verbal proposition was made, but only heard of it from others. He wrote it out in a formal letter to Ward, dated May 14th, 1863, and this letter and the evidence of Trowbridge as to what he learned about it from others, is all the evidence we have of its precise terms.

The judge left it to the jury to say whether the letter contained the precise oral arrangement or not, with liberty to take into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. The plaintiff in error complains of this feature of the charge. He insists that there was no evidence that the oral agreement was anything different from what the letter stated it to be.

It seems to me that the judge went quite as far as he was bound to go in favor of the plaintiff in error. The great controlling facts of the case were that the company agreed to pay this $80,000 to get clear of the bonds, and of all claims in regard to them; that Ward never informed the government officials of this offer, but made representations which entirely ignored any such state of things-representations, to say the least, that were disingenuous, considering the relation in which he stood to the parties as surety on the bonds. Upon these representations he got a compromise, and afterwards had the offer of the railroad company put in writing in the shape in which it now stands in Trowbridge's letter. He finally received the money and pocketed it all, except $35,000, which he paid to the government.

His conduct was surely an estoppel against himself, so far as the government was concerned. He was under an obligation to disclose the offer which had been made to him. He admits he received the $80,000 on account of the bonds. He cannot be permitted to say that he received part of the money for himself. If that was the arrangement why did he not tell the district attorney so? As between him and the government, the latter had the prior right to be paid out of the fund. Ward was surety to the government for the payment of its whole claim. He must be deemed in law, under the circumstances, to have received the money for the use of the government. Hence the judge was right in declining to say what the true construction of Trowbridge's letter was.

I think the judgment should be affirmed.


text: Talk:Ward v. United States (81 U.S. 28)/Dissent Bradley