text:
Louisville v. Savings Bank/Opinion of the Court

The bonds in question contain the same recitals as those of Harter Township in the same county, the validity of which was determined in Harter v. Kernochan, 103 U.S. 562. The same questions which arose on the validity, construction, and scope of the enactments under which they were issued, and delivered to the consolidated company, are now presented for determination. We perceive no reason for withdrawing or qualifying the conclusions we then announced.

There is, however, one question of some importance which did not then arise. It appeared in that case that the election held under the act of Feb. 25, 1867, on Nov. 10, 1868,-at which the township voted a donation to be raised by special tax, payable in three equal annual instalments,-was supplemented by anothr, held, under the authority of the amendatory act, on the twentieth day of May, 1870, at which Harter Township directed bonds to be issued in payment of its donation previously voted. In the present case, while the election at which the township of Louisville voted a similar donation, to be raised by like special tax, was also held on the 10th of November, 1868, the one at which the township voted to issue bonds in payment of such donation was not held until the 2d of July, 1870. On the day last named the people of Illinois voted in favor of the adoption of a new constitution. The second of the additional sections, which is entitled 'Municipal subscriptions to railroads or private corporations,' was separately submitted, and is in these words: 'No county, city, town, township, or other municipality shall ever become a subscriber to the capital stock of any railroad or private corporation, or make donation to or loan its credit in aid of any such corporation: Provided, however, that the adoption of this article shall not be construed as affecting the right of any such municipality to make such subscriptions where the same have been authorized, under existing laws, by a vote of the people of such municipalities prior to such adoption.' In Town of Concord v. Portsmouth Savings Bank (92 U.S. 625), we held that donations by counties or other municipalities in Illinois to railroad companies could not lawfully be made after July 2, 1870, though authorized by a statute enacted and a popular vote cast before the adoption of the Constitution. This ruling was made in ignorance of the fact, to which our attention was no at the time called, that the Supreme Court of Illinois had, in an unreported case, decided that the intention of the framers of the Constitution was not to prohibit donations authorized under pre-existing laws by a vote of the people prior to the adoption of that instrument, but to place subscriptions and donations on the same footing. Consequently, in Fairfield v. County of Gallatin (100 U.S. 47), the ruling was modified, and the construction placed upon the organic law of Illinois by its highest court accepted and enforced. It may, therefore, be regarded as the settled law of Illinois that its Constitution recognized as binding donations, as well as subscriptions, by a township in aid of a railroad corporation, which were authorized, under existing laws, by a vote of the people prior to the adoption of that instrument.

We have seen that the people of Louisville Township did, prior to the adoption of the Constitution of 1870, vote in aid of this railroad enterprise a donation to be raised by special tax, for a limited period. That donation was, beyond question, unaffected by the constitutional provision prohibiting municipal aid to railroads or private corporations. When that instrument was adopted the township had ample authority, conferred by the vote of the people, to raise by special tax a specific amount to be donated for the purpose indicated.

But the argument, on behalf of the plaintiff in error, proceeds upon these grounds: that this is not a suit to enforce the levy of a special tax in payment of the donation voted Nov. 10, 1868, but a suit on the bonds voted on the second day of July, 1870; that by the settled course of decisions in the Supreme Court of Illinois the township officers could not legally issue bonds in payment of a donation, previously voted to be raised by special tax, without the consent of the people expressed at an election duly called and held for the purpose of determining that question; that no election could confer authority to issue bonds unless held before the section of the Constitution which we have mentioned took effect; that the section having been adopted by popular vote on the 2d of July, 1870, was in operation from the first moment of that day; and that, consequently, the township election held on the same day was, in view of the constitutional inhibition, unavailing to confer authority to substitute a donation of interest-bearing bonds maturing many years after date, for a donation to be satisfied by a special annual tax for three years. In other words, that a popular vote authorizing an issue of bonds, in order to escape that inhibition, must have been cast prior to the day on which the Constitution was adopted.

Passing by, as unnecessary for determination, the propositions embodied in the first branch of this argument, and conceding them for the purposes of this case to be correct, we proceed to inquire as to the time when the Constitution of 1870, including that section, became the fundamental law of the State, and what effect it had on the township election held on the 2d of July of that year.

At what precise hour on that day the Constitution was adopted by popular vote cannot be stated. But we know that it could not have occurred before sunset, since the schedule, providing for the submission of the Constitution to the popular vote, expressly required the polls to be kept open for the reception of ballots until that hour. Nor are we able to ascertain, from the record, the exact moment when the township voted in favor of the issue of these bonds. The town meeting to determine whether they should be issued, in lieu of a special tax, was to be held at nine o'clock in the forenoon; it was so held, and only fifty-four votes were cast, of which fifty-two were in favor of the issue. The presumption may, therefore, be fairly indulged that the township had, in fact, voted for issuing bonds before the close of the general election, on the same day at which the people of the State voted on the adoption of the particular sections of the Const tution, separately submitted, which relates to municipal subscriptions to railroads and private corporations.

The schedule provided that if a majority of the votes polled were for the Constitution, so much of it as was not separately submitted should be the supreme law of the State on and after Aug. 8, 1870. The Supreme Court of Illinois, in Schall v. Bowman (62 Ill. 321), declared that although the result of the election could not have been officially ascertained and declared before the expiration of some weeks thereafter, the provision relating to municipal aid to railroad corporations 'was so framed that it could, appropriately and effectually, become a part of the organic law, without the disturbance of any of its elements, and was a declaration of the people on the second day of July, 1870, that from and after that day, no matter what may become of the new Constitution no county, city, town, township, or other municipality shall ever become subscriber to the capital stock of any railroad or private corporation, or make donations to, or loan its credit in aid of, such corporation.' Further, in the same case it was said: 'We are unable to find anything in the Constitution itself, or in the schedule thereto, militating against the view we have taken, that this separate article of the Constitution of 1870 went into full effect on the day of its adoption by a vote of the people; that is, on the second day of July, 1870. There is no provision of the Constitution requiring a different construction.' The subscription, the validity of which was there involved, we remark, in passing, was made in pursuance of a municipal election held on the third day of August, 1870.

The next case was Richards v. Donagho, 66 id. 73. It related to a proposed municipal subscription in pursuance of an election called July 12, 1870, and held Aug. 2, 1870. The court adhered to the decision in Schall v. Bowman. The remaining case to which our attention has been called is Wright v. Bishop, 88 id. 302. There the vote for an issue of bonds was given at an election held on the second day of August, 1870. The court, referring to the preceding cases, said: 'This, we have held, was too late. The clause in the Constitution, containing the prohibition against municipal subscriptions or donations in aid of railroad companies and other private corporations, took effect on the second day of July, 1870; and all such subscriptions or donations, not authorized by a vote of the municipality, prior to that time, are void.'

It is thus seen that he cases related to an election held in the month of August, 1870. Neither of them involved the validity of a subscription or a donation made in pursuance of an election held on the 2d of July, 1870; and, consequently, that learned tribunal has not indicated its opinion as to whether the constitutional inhibition forbade a municipal subscription or donation, in pursuance of an election held on the very day of the adoption of the Constitution. It is true that the court, in Wright v. Bishop, after saying that the provisions in question 'took effect on the 2d of July, 1870,' remarked that 'all such subscriptions or donations, not authorized by a vote of the municipality, prior to that time, are void.' But that language must be interpreted with reference to the facts of the particular case presented for judicial determination. It is not clear that the phrase, 'prior to that time,' was intended to refer to the day on which the constitutional provision took effect, as distinguished from the precise moment of its adoption by the popular vote. The case involved no such question.

We are justified in so interpreting the decision in Wright v. Bishop by what was said in Grosvenor v. Magill (37 id. 239), the doctrines of which have not, so far as we are able to find, been modified by any subsequent ruling of that court. The question involved was whether the law regards fractions of a day. The court, speaking by Mr. Justice Lawrence, said: 'It is rue that for many purposes the law knows no division of a day; but whenever it becomes important to the ends of justice, or in order to decide upon conflicting interests, the law will look into fractions of a day, as readily as into the fractions of any other unit of time. 2 Bl. Com. 140, notes. The rule is purely one of convenience, which must give way whenever the rights of parties require it. There is no indivisible unity about a day which forbids us, in legal proceedings, to consider its component hours, any more than about a month, which restrains us from regarding its constituent days. The law is not made of such unreasonable and arbitrary rules.'

The views expressed in the last case are consistent with sound reason and public policy. They accord with our own judgment, and are in line with the settled course of decisions in other courts.

In Arnold v. United States (9 Cranch, 104), it was declared to be the general rule that where computation is to be made from an act done, the day on which the act is to be done should be included. Hence, an act of Congress, imposing additional duties to be levied and collected upon all goods imported from and after its passage, was adjudged to be in force on the day of its approval by the President. And, upon the principle that the law will not take cognizance of fractions of a day, it has been said in some cases that a statute is operative from the first moment of the day on which it takes effect. But to these general rules there are established exceptions, as an examination of adjudged cases and elementary treatises will show.

Mr. Justice Story has discussed this question with fulness in In the Matter of Joseph Richardson, 2 Story, 571. By an act approved March 3, 1843, the statute establishing a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States, approved Aug. 19, 1841, was repealed. But it contained a proviso that the act should not affect any cause or proceeding in bankruptcy commenced before its passage, or any pains, penalties, or forfeitures incurred under said act; but that 'every such proceeding might be continued to its final consummation,' in like manner as if that act had not passed. A petition in bankruptcy was filed by Richardson on the 3d of March, 1843, and the question arose whether it was cut off by the repealing act approved on the same day.

It appeared that the petition was filed about noon, while the repealing act was not, in fact, approved by the President until late in the evening of the same day, several hours after the filing of the petition. It was ruled, upon the case presented, that the act of Congress should be held to have taken effect only from the act of approval by the President, and not by relation from the commencement of the day on which such approval was given. After a review of the English decisions, the court said: 'So that we see that there is no ground of authority, and, certainly, there is no reason to assert that any such general rule prevails, as that the law does not allow of fractions of a day. On the contrary, common sense and common justice equally sustain the propriety of allowing fractions of a day, whenever it will promote the purposes of substantial justice.'

In Lapeyre v. United States (17 Wall. 191), it was said that an act of Congress, unless it is otherwise declared by law, becomes operative from the first moment of the day of its passage; and, further, that 'fractions of the day are not recognized,' and 'an inquiry involving that subject is inadmissible.' In reference to that case we remark, that the question presented for determination was not as to fractions of a day, but whether a proclamation of the President, bearing date June 24, 1865, took effect on that day or on the 27th of June, 1865, when it was first promulgated by publication in the newspapers. That case did not require a determination of the question of law now before us. The language quoted from the opinion must, therefore, be taken as a declaration of the general rule which obtains when t e evidence does not show the necessity of regarding fractions of a day.

In United States v. North (97 U.S. 164), the court, while declaring, upon the authority of Lapeyre v. United States, that the President's proclamation of June 13, 1865, removing all restrictions upon internal, domestic, and coastwise intercourse and trade, took effect as of the beginning of June 13, 1865, and covered all the transactions of that day to which it was applicable, said: 'We do not think this is a case in which fractions of a day should be taken into account.' This language of the Chief Justice clearly implies that there were cases in which the court would regard fractions of a day. Besides, there was no question in that case, nor any proof made, as to the particular hour of the day when the proclamation of the President was issued.

At the same term Burgess v. Salmon (id. 381) was decided. An act of Congress increased the tax on tobacco from twenty to twenty-four cents per pound, but contained a proviso that the increased tax should not apply to tobacco 'on which the tax under existing laws shall have been paid when this [that] act takes effect.' It was approved on the afternoon of March 3, 1875, while the tobacco of Salmon was stamped, sold, and removed for consumption or use from the place of manufacture in the forenoon of the same day. It was ruled that the court could inquire as to the time of the day when the President approved the act, and that 'the time of such approval points out the earliest possible moment at which it could become a law, or, in the words of the act of March 3, 1875, at which it could take effect.' It was, consequently, adjudged that the tobacco was not subject to the increased tax imposed by a statute which was not in fact approved, and did not take effect, until after the removal, on the same day, of the tobacco. In that case the parties agreed as to the respective hours of the day when the tobacco was, in fact, stamped and removed, and when the act was approved by the President. But such an agreement could not have authorized an inquiry into fractions of a day, unless such inquiry were permissible by the established rules of law.

The cases in the State courts bearing upon this question, and taking substantially the same view, are numerous. We refer to only two of them. In Kennedy v. Palmer (6 Gray (Mass.), 316), the question was as to the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace of a particular county to hear and determine an action, commenced May 7, 1865, on which day the governor of the State approved an act, by which the exclusive jurisdiction of all such actions, 'not already pending,' was vested in a police court thereby established, the act providing that it should take effect from and after its passage. The evidence did not show either the hour of the day when the action was commenced, nor the hour when the governor approved the act. The court adjudged that the justice had jurisdiction until the precise point of time when the act was approved, and thus became a law; and that since it did not appear that the suit was instituted after the approval of the act, it must be treated as one pending at the passage of the act, and, therefore, as unaffected by its provisions.

The other case is People v. Clark, 1 Cal. 406. The facts of that case were these: Clark was elected county judge at an election regularly appointed and held. On that day the legislature passed an act repealing the one by virtue of which the election was held, and conferring upon the governor the power of appointment. The repealing act was approved the same day, but at what hour of the day did not appear. Some days thereafter the relator was, by the governor, appointed county judge. The court sustained the validity of the election, remarking that 'the time of the approval of the executive is a fact which can be ascertained and proven, and in all cases, where the rights of parties are in any manner to be affected by the time of the approval, an investigation of the question, when he event-the passage of the act-occurred, should be had.'

There are decisions in the English courts to the same effect. In Roe d. Wrangham v. Hersey (3 Wils. 274), the court characterized, as a mere fiction of law, the general proposition that there were no fractions of a day; that, 'by fiction of law, the whole time of the assizes and the whole session of Parliament may be, and sometimes are, considered as one day; yet the matter of fact shall overturn the fiction in order to do justice between the parties.' Fictio cedit veritati; fictio juris non est ubi veritas. In Combe v. Pitt (3 Burr. 1423, 1434), Lord Mansfield expressed similar views. He said: 'But though the law does not, in general, allow of the fraction of a day, yet it admits it in cases where it is necessary to distinguish. And I do not see why the very hour of the day may not be so too, when it is necessary and can be done; for it is not like a mathematical point, which cannot be divided.'

In view of the authorities it cannot be doubted that the courts may, when substantial justice requires it, ascertain the precise hour when a statute took effect by the approval of the executive. But it may be argued that the rule does not apply where the inquiry is as to the time when constitutional provisions became operative by popular vote; that a popular vote, given at an election covering many hours of the same day, should be deemed one indivisible act, effectual, by relation, from the moment the electors entered upon the performance of that act, to wit, from the opening of the polls. But we are of opinion that no such distinction can be maintained. In determining when a statute took effect no account is taken of the time it received the sanction of the two branches of the legislative department, which sanction is as essential to the validity of the statute as the approval of the executive. We look to the final act of approval by the executive to find when the statute took effect, and, when necessary, inquire as to the hour of the day when that approval was, in fact, given. So, in ascertaining when a constitutional provision was adopted, we perceive no sound reason why the courts may not, in proper cases, inquire as to the hour when such approval became effectual, to wit, as to the time when, by the closing of the polls, the people had adopted such provision. In this case all difficulty is removed by the fact, made certain by the schedule to the Constitution requiring the polls to be kept open until a certain hour of the day of election. That fact should not be disregarded or ignored in ascertaining when the constitutional provision was adopted, especially since it expressly saved the obligations and rights of the municipalities which had, before its adoption, under the authority of pre-existing laws, voted subscriptions or donations.

We are of opinion that, within the fair meaning of the State Constitution, the township election of the 2d of July, 1870, was held prior to the adoption of the section forbidding municipal subscriptions or donations in aid of railroad corporations, and under the authority of valid enactments in force when such election was held. The bonds, the coupons of which are in suit, were, consequently, unaffected by the prohibitions of the State Constitution. All other material objections to their validity have been considered and overruled in Harter v. Kernochan.

Judgment affirmed.


text: Talk:Louisville v. Savings Bank/Opinion of the Court

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


text:
United States v. Steamship Company

APPEAL from the Court of Claims.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

The Solicitor-General for the United States.

Mr. William E. Chandler and Mr. John F. Farnsworth for the appellee.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

title: United States v. Steamship Company


text: Talk:United States v. Steamship Company

title: Talk:United States v. Steamship Company


text:
United States v. Steamship Company/Opinion of the Court

In this case, which was before us at the last term, on the appeal of the steamship company, the judgment was reversed, and the case remanded with directions to render a judgment in conformity to our opinion. 103 U.S.

The principal question, in fact the only one then considered, was, whether the mails had been carried by the company between San Francisco and Hong-Kong in such vessels as the contract required.

The finding of facts by the Court of Claims enabled us to decide, that apart from those of the 'City of Pekin,' which was governed by considerations peculiar to itself, six of the other twelve voyages for which the claimants asserted a right to recover had been performed in vessels of the required character, and six had not. The names of the vessels and their class were specifically set out in that finding, and we held that the voyage of the 'Japan,' commencing Aug. 29, 1874, at San Francisco, had been performed in a proper vessel, and that the claimants were entitled to recover therefor.

The whole matter would seem to have been thus closed, but for the following sentence in the opinion of this court: 'There may be deductions for non-performance of duty, or other matters provided in the contract in regard to which no finding is made by the Court of Claims, but which will be open to inquiry on the return of the case to that court.'

When the case came before it on the mandate and that opinion, it was conceded by stipulation, as a fact, that on this voyage the 'Japan' stopped at Yokohama and sent the mails by other vessels to Hong-Kong, and that the return mail from Hong-Kong to Yokohama was carried in the same manner, the 'Japan' returning in due time with a mail to San Francisco.

It is argued by counsel for the United States that because the whole of the voyage was not performed in vessels of the character required by the contract, the entire claim therefor is invalidated.

The Court of Claims was of opinion that this matter was not open to inquiry under the ruling made here, and in this we concur.

The questions as to the vessels in which the mail had been carried, and their conformity to the contract, were the only ones in issue before the Court of Claims and this court. The former made such findings of fact, pertinent to them, as enabled us to say that for six of these voyages the government was bound to pay, and the case was sent back to the Court of Claims to render judgment accordingly.

The character of the vessels and the performance of the voyages were then adjudicated and fixed, and were no longer open to inquiry.

The contract contained a provision that suitable fines and penalties should be imposed by the Postmaster-General for delays and irregularities in the performance of the service, and for failure to take or deliver any part of the mail, for suffering it to be injured or lost, and many things of that kind, which had not been passed on because the United States denied the liability in toto, on the ground of the character of the vessels.

It was to such matters that the opinion had reference in the passage we have cited, and not to the character of these vessels which was settled by the first finding of facts and the decision thereon.

It is suggested by counsel for the United States that, by the terms of the stipulation as to these new matters filed in the Court of Claims, the case was opened by agreement. The language relied on is this: 'It is agreed that the case be submitted, under the mandate and opinion of the Supreme Court herein, on the following facts, which, as far as they may affect or modify any facts heretofore found by the court, are agreed to be in addition or substitution therefor.' We understand this to mean that the matters stated are true, and so far as they are proper evidence, as the case stands they are conceded; but that it was not intended to consent to a reopening of the question touching the character of any vessel in which the mails had been carried under that contract; and such was the view taken by the Court of Claims.

After the case was remanded, that court was informed by a letter from the Postmaster-General that, in the event that it should accept the voyage of the 'Japan,' he had made an order imposing a fine of $13,00 for the delay of that vessel in starting on the voyage at San Francisco. As such an order could be of no avail after the court had decided the case, in which event alone the fine was to be imposed, that court very properly disregarded it.

Judgment affirmed.


text: Talk:United States v. Steamship Company/Opinion of the Court


text:
Huntington v. Palmer

APPEAL from the Cirecuit Court of the United States for the District of California.

Huntington filed this bill against Palmer, tax-collector of the County of Alameda, California, and the Central Pacific Railroad Company, alleging that he is a stockholder of the company, and that, on behalf of himself and such other stockholders as will come in and contribute to its prosecution, he brings the suit to enjoin and restrain the company from wasting and misapplying its funds, as it threatens to do, by paying certain taxes upon its property in that county which, he alleges, were unlawfully and unconstitutionally assessed against it. The other facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

The demurrer of Palmer was sustained to the amended bill, and a decree rendered in favor of the defendants. Huntington appealed.

Mr. Hall McAllister and Mr. Harvey S. Brown for the appellant.

Mr. Alfred Barstow for Palmer.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Huntington v. Palmer


text: Talk:Huntington v. Palmer

title: Talk:Huntington v. Palmer


text:
Huntington v. Palmer/Opinion of the Court

The bill of complaint sets out that the railroad company is unjustly and illegally taxed in many particulars, the laws under which the taxes are levied being repugnant to the Constitution of the State, and in an amended bill they are asserted to be in conflict with the Constitution of the United States.

It is unnecessary to examine into the sufficiency of the allegations of the bill on these points, because we think it comes clearly within the principles announced in the case of Hawes v. Oakland, supra, p. 450.

Although the company is the party injured by the taxation complained of, which must be paid out of its treasury, if paid at all, the suit is not brought in its name, but in that of one of its stockholders. Of course, as we have attempted to show in the case just mentioned, this cannot be done without there has been an honest and earnest effort by the complainant to induce the corporation to take the necessary steps to obtain relief.

The complainant alleges that on or about the fifteenth day of December, 1880, he did inform, and cause to be informed, the board of directors of the company of the invalidity of the pretended assessment and the taxes founded thereon, and did then and there request the board to take such action or legal proceedings as might be proper in the premises to test and determine their validity. He also alleges that the board then and there absolutely and wilfully refused to do so, and that it will pay these illegal taxes out of the funds of the company, to the detriment of himself and other stockholders.

There is not, as in Dodge v. Woolsey (18 How. 331), any averment that these taxes are so burdensome as to be destructive of the corporation itself; nor that there was any fraud on the part of the directors, nor anything to show that their decision not to resist the taxes is unwise, or opposed to the best judgment they could exercise in the matter.

There is no averment of any effort to invoke the control of the body of the stockholders, or any reason why it was not done. Nor is it made to appear that a single stockholder was consulted by the complainant, or has any wish to contest the payment of these taxes with the State authorities.

It is the bald claim of one stockholder, owning $100,000 of the stock out of $10,000,000, or thereabouts, without any serious effort to bring the others to his views, or even the board of directors, to assert a right of action for the whole body in the very common matter of paying more taxes than he thinks to be just.

There is here no formal written appeal to the board, nor any formal resolution of that body, asi n Dodge v. Woolsey, and there is nothing to repel the reasonable presumption that parties were improperly and collusively made in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal court.

We are of opinion, therefore, that the demurrer was properly sustained, and the decree dismissing the bill is

Affirmed.


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


text:
Vinton v. Hamilton

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio.

The bill of complaint alleged that Hamilton and the other defendants were infringing certain letters-patent, No. 143,600, dated Oct. 14, 1873, and granted to John J. Vinton, one of the complainants, for an improvement in the manufacture of iron from furnace slag, and it prayed for an injunction to restrain them from further infringement, and for damages and an account of profits.

The answer denied that Vinton was the original or first inventor or discoverer of the patented improvement, and it denied infringement.

Upon final hearing, the bill was dismissed because the process described in the letters-patent was known and in common use before Vinton's application for them, and the same were, therefore, null and void.

The complainants thereupon appealed the case to this court.

The specification of the letters-patent declares as follows:

'My invention relates to the production of cast-iron from the slag, or refuse of the smelting or blast furnace. IIeretofore a large percentage of good metallic iron has been thrown away with the slag, and become lost to commerce, so far as its use as metallic iron is concerned. This is more particularly the case with rich ores, such at the Missouri and lake ores, which from their nature flux imperfectly in the ordinary smelting furnace. When imperfectly fluxed the slag assumes a thick consistency, and cools with a general grayish color, and though the presence of metal in it cannot be detected by the eye, yet the slag will be found to be of comparatively great specific gravity, and in fact contains a very large percentage of good metallic iron, often as great as as the amount of metal reduced from the ore in the process of smelting.

'To reduce this metal from the heavy slag of the smelting furnace, and thereby increase the production of iron from the same amount of ore, is the object of my invention. To accomplish the desired result I employ a cupola furnace, but furnaces specially adapted to the purpose may be constructed and conveniently used in connection with the blast furnaces where the iron is smelted.

'The heavy slag is first pulverized or broken up into small pieces, or it may be made granulous or spongy by passing water or air through it when in a molten state, or in any of the well-known ways. A bed of coke or other suitable material is first placed in the cupola, and on the top of the coke a small quantity of scrap or other oxidized iron (preferable scale or black oxide of iron) is sprinkled.

'The slag to be operated on is then introduced as evenly as possible on the top of the coke and iron oxide, and on the top of the slag I sprinkle a small quantity of limestone broken up into small pieces, then a layer of coke, followed with scrap and scale slag and lime as before alternately until the whole cupola is charged.

'The fuel is then ignited, and when the fire is above the tuyeres the blast is turned on to the full. Owing to the presence of the iron oxides, the heat is very great when brought in contact with the slag, and the latter is speedily reduced, and as the operation goes on, fresh charges of the materials are supplied from the top of the cupola, provision being made for the passage of the remaining slag from the furnace at a point below the tuyeres.

'In this way it will be seen that the process is continuous, and the furnace is not permitted to get cool.

'The charge is made up in about the following proportions, but may be slightly varied as occasion requires: After the furnace is in operation, first, three bushels of coke; secn d, fifty pounds iron oxide (scrap or scale); third, eight hundred pounds slag; fourth, one-fourth of a bushel of limestone, thrown into the cupola in succession, and from time to time as required.

'When there is much sulphur in the iron a small quantity of the black oxide of manganese may be blown in through the tuyeres, and salt or litharge, or a mixture of any two or all three of these ingredients, may be used in this manner with good effect. The iron thus obtained is run into moulds in the usual way.

'What I claim as my invention, and desire to secure by letters-patent, is the herein-described method of reducing iron from the slag or refuse of blast or smelting furnaces, substantially as set forth.' Mr. Andrew McCallum for the appellants.

Mr. Thomas W. Sanderson for the appellees.

Mr. JUSTICE WOODS, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Vinton v. Hamilton


text: Talk:Vinton v. Hamilton

title: Talk:Vinton v. Hamilton


text:
Vinton v. Hamilton/Opinion of the Court

It is matter of general knowledge that pig-iron is made from iron ore in a blast or smelting furnace; that to secure this product the furnace is charged, first, with a layer of coke or charcoal, then with a layer of iron ore, mixed with broken limestone, and so on in alternate layers until the proper quantity of these materials is placed in the furnace. The fuel is then ignited, and, for the purpose of increasing the heat, streams of air are forced into the furnace by means of blast-pipes, the nozzles of which, called tuyeres, are inserted in openings in the walls of the furnace, usually from four to six feet above its bettom.

The limestone is used merely as a flux. The ore under this process undergoes a chemical change, and iron is formed and sinks in a molten state to the bottom of the hearth, by which is meant not only the bottom of the furnace, but its sides as high up as the foot of the boshes. The refuse left after the melted iron has dropped into the hearth is also in a molten state, and, being lighter than the iron, floats on its top. This is indifferently called 'cinder' and 'slag.' About three or four times in every twenty-four hours the melted iron is drawn from the furnace. This is accomplished in the following manner: The furnace is constructed with two holes, one called the iron and the other the cinder notch. The iron notch is made at the bottom of the hearth. The cinder notch is higher up the side of the furnace, just below the level of the tuyeres; so high that the cinder can be drawn through it without letting off the molten iron. These holes are kept habitually closed with clay or other similar material. At frequent intervals, and always just before drawing off the molten iron, or making a cast, as the ironmongers call it, the cinder notch is opened, and the cinder or slag is allowed to escape, and is carried away from the furnace in a trough made of moistened sand. The cinder notch is then closed and the iron notch is opened, and the molten iron is drawn off through a sand-trough, and conducted into moulds made in sand-beds, called the sow and pigs, where it is allowed to cool. The result is the pig-iron of commerce.

In the mean time, the furnace is supplied with constant charges of fuel and ore, mixed with limestone, in alternate layers, dumped in from the top; and this process is kept up without cessation for months and sometimes for years.

The sand-trough which connects the pig-beds with the iron notch is usually larger and deeper, but more elevated than the sow or general gutter which conducts the iron into the moulds or grooves in the pig-beds. When the metal is first let into the trough it accumulates so as to fill it nearly to the brim. As the flow from the iron notch decreases, the iron, and a small quantity of cinder or slag, which has been chilled by coming in contact with the cold surface of the trough, adhere to its sides and bottom. When the molten iron on the hearth is about exhausted, the blast is increased, and the material left on the hearth is blown out through the iron notch into the sand-trough. This also cools in the trough, and thus is formed what are known as trog h runners, consisting of iron and slag, which have been forced through the iron notch by letting on the blast as just mentioned.

A cupola furnace is one used for melting pig-iron for the purpose of casting it into useful forms and articles. It constitutes part of the equipment of a foundry. In shape it is generally a hollow cylinder. The iron is melted by substantially the same process as the ore in a blast furnace. The cupola furnace has an iron notch but no cinder notch, because there is generally so little cinder or slag in pig-iron, as to render such an opening unnecessary.

In order to reach the merits of the controversy, it is necessary to obtain a definite idea of what, if anything, the appellants are entitled to under Vinton's patent.

The specifications are ambiguous in respect to the particular kind of slag which is to be used in the process therein described, that is to say, whether it is the slag drawn off through the cinder notch, or the runners which are left in the trough through which the molten iron is discharged from the iron notch of a blast furnace. It appears, however, from the evidence that the use of the latter only is contemplated, the former containing such a very inconsiderable quantity of iron as to be valueless.

We observe, in the first place, that the patent cannot be held to cover the discovery that the slag, which is to be used in the process described in the specifications, contains so large a percentage of good metallic iron that it can be profitably extracted by again smelting it.

The evidence shows beyond controversy that for many years before Sept. 18, 1873, the earliest date assigned to the discovery or invention of Vinton, it had been well and generally known that the trough runners contained a large proportion of metallic iron, and they were broken up and resmelted in blast furnaces. They were thrown into the furnace with scrap iron and iron ore, and smelted in the same manner. It was formerly a notion among old-fashioned furnace men, that the use of this material injured the furnace, and deteriorated the quality of the iron produced. But this conceit had been exploded long before the date of his patent, and the runners and other heavy slag were used habitually in many blast furnaces as above stated.

Secondly, The use of a cupola furnace for the purpose of resmelting trough runners and heavy slag cannot be claimed as any part of Vinton's invention. The evidence in the record shows that as early as the year 1844, at the Jackson furnace, in Venango County, Pennsylvania, which was a blast furnace, a cupola furnace was erected and used for the purpose of smelting heavy slag, from which was manufactured plow-points and hollow-ware, such as skillets, pots, and Dutch-ovens. Sometimes the product was made into pig-iron. This cupola furnace was thus used for three or four years. The fact of such use was public; no effort was made to keep it secret, and it was known, in the language of the witnesses, 'all around the furnace.'

The testimony of Robert Paisley, William J. Shaner, and Thomas W. Kennedy, which is found in the record, shows that the Beaver Falls Co-operative Foundry Association, in April, 1872, made the experiment of using slag and runners in their cupola furnace; and the experiment proving successful, the runners, as early as August, 1872, were procured by the carload, and mixed with pig-iron and run into stove-plates. In this way fifty-eight or sixty tons of runners were used prior to Oct. 14, 1873, the date of Vinton's patent.

This use of heavy slag and runners was open and public. No one was excluded from the foundry where the work was carried on. Any one was at liberty to enter and see what was going on, and persons not interested in the furnace-among them the witness Thomas W. Kennedy-did so. No injunction of secrecy was imposed on them. It is true the operatives at the furnace, who were all stockholders of the association, said nothing about the use they were making of trough runners, because, as they said, if it was a god thing, they wanted to keep it to themselves; but they took no steps to keep it a secret, except that they did not talk about it. In fact, it was at the suggestion of Kennedy that the Beaver Falls Co-operative Foundry Association made the experiment of melting runners and heavy slag in their cupola furnace.

After the experiment made by the Beaver Falls Co-operative Foundry Association in April, 1872, had proved successful, Kennedy, in August, 1873, furnished the defendant, Hamilton, with a quantity of trough runners to be smelted in his cupola furnace, and before Oct. 1, 1873, had sold to foundrymen not less than one hundred tons of the same material to be used for the same purpose.

In fact, the record shows that Kennedy, more than a year before the date of Vinton's patent, revived the practice of smelting trough runners and heavy slag in a cupola furnace. As early as the spring of 1872 he declared to the defendant, Hamilton, Thomas Struthers, and others the feasibility of the process, and suggested to Struthers that they ought to take out a patent for it. But Struthers said that unless they could get up some new way of extracting the iron it would not be patentable, and that was the conclusion they came to after talking the matter over. But Kennedy at once, in the spring of 1872, commenced buying up the trough runners from the blast furnaces, and selling them to foundrymen for use in cupola furnaces.

It is, therefore, abundantly shown in the record that before the date of Vinton's patent, or of his invention, the smelting of trough runners and other heavy slag in cupola furnaces was practised and well known.

Thirdly, The method of making slag granulous or spongy by passing water or air through it when in a molten state is not new, nor is it claimed to be new. Besides, there is no evidence that this process is used by the appellees.

Fourthly, The method of charging the cupola furnace and of smelting the slag as described in the specification of the patent is as old as the art of making pig-iron, except, perhaps, the sprinkling of scale or black oxide of iron on the top of the coke, and this is not done by the appellees.

Fifthly, The appellants do not claim that Vinton's invention covers a cupola furnace. A review of the case shows, therefore, that he did not first discover the value of furnace runners or heavy slag for resmelting, that he was not the first to smelt them and use them for running into pigs or castings, either in a blast furnace or a cupola furnace, and that there is nothing new in his process of smelting which is used by the appellees.

All, therefore, that is left for his invention to cover, and which the appellants can claim as infringed by the appellees, is the employment of a cinder notch or hole in a cupola furnace to draw off the cinder when the furnace is employed in smelting furnace runners or heavy slag. But if the testimony of unimpeached and uncontradicted witnesses is to be believed, as early as June, 1872, at Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, a cinder notch was used by the Beaver Falls Co-operative Association in a cupola furnace when employed in smelting furnace runners. The notch was put in the cupola at the suggestion of the witness, Thomas W. Kennedy, who was not a member of the association, but who, being the owner of a blast furnace, was selling to it furnace runners to be resmelted and used for making castings. He testifies to the fact distinctly and clearly, and designates the part of the cupola where the notch was placed, namely, 'between the tuyeres at the back of the cupola to draw off the slag.' He is fully corroborated by the witness, W. J. Shaner, a member of the association, whose business was to do the smelting.

This use of the cinder notch in the cupola was public. No effort was made to exclude spectators from the foundry or to conceal the notch. The invention, therefore, of a cinder notch in a cupola furnace, if it was an invention at all, was made by Thomas W. Kennedy fifteen months before Vinton, according to his own testimony, evr conceived the idea; and Kennedy, during all that time, allowed it to be used by others, without any injunction or secrecy or any restriction or limitation in a foundry which was open to all who might choose to visit it, and which was visited by many spectators not concerned in its operations.

But even if the application of a cinder notch to a cupola furnace was first made by Vinton, the question remains whether, standing alone, it implies invention and is patentable.

We think that this question must be answered in the negative. Neither a cupola furnace nor a cinder notch is new. The use of a cinder notch for drawing off cinders from a blast furnace is as old as blast furnaces themselves. The function which the cinder notch performs in the process covered by Vinton's invention is precisely the same for which it is used in a blast furnace. In smelting slag in a cupola furnace it was found that the molten cinder accumulated and floated on the top of the molten iron. The application to a cupola furnace, for the purpose of drawing off the cinder, of the cinder notch used in the blast furnace to accomplish the same end, would occur to any practical man. When applied to a cupola furnace the same function was performed in the same way by the same means. In making this application there was no invention. Pearce v. Mulford, 102 U.S. 112.

We are of opinion, therefore, that the application of a cinder notch to a cupola furnace for the purpose designated is neither patentable nor new, and that all the other parts of the process and appliances covered by Vinton's patent were old and well known long before the date of his alleged invention and the patent therefor. He was not the first inventor, either in fact or in law, of the discovery or invention described in his letters-patent. They are, therefore, void, and the decree of the Circuit Court dismissing the bill was right, and must be

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS did not sit in this case nor take any part in its decision.

title: Vinton v. Hamilton/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Vinton v. Hamilton/Opinion of the Court


text:
Bank v. Tennessee

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. William Y. C. Humes for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. Benjamin J. Lea, Attorney-General of Tennessee, contra.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Bank v. Tennessee


text: Talk:Bank v. Tennessee

title: Talk:Bank v. Tennessee


text:
Bank v. Tennessee/Opinion of the Court

The Bank of Commerce, plaintiff in this case, is a corporation created in 1856 by the legislature of Tennessee to engage in the business of discounting notes, buying and selling stock, dealing in exchange and gold and silver bullion, and receiving moneys on deposit. Its charter provides that it 'may purchase and hold a lot of ground for the use of the institution as a place of business, and at pleasure sell and exchange the same, and may hold such real or personal property and estate as may be conveyed to it to secure debts due the institution, and may sell and convey the same.' The charter also declares that the institution 'shall pay to the State an annual tax of one-half of one per cent on each share of capital stock, which shall be in lieu of all other taxes.'

Previous to 1879 the bank purchased with a portion of its capital stock a lot of ground in the city of Memphis, with the improvements thereon, as a place of business, and has held the same ever since. The improvements consist of a three-story brick building, but the bank only uses the first floor for its business, and leases out the cellar and the second and third stories to other parties for a money rent.

On the 1st of January, 1880, the bank was, and ever since has been, the owner of three other lots in the city of Memphis. It had previously made loans to different parties, and taken as security for their payment a deed of the lots executed to a trustee. The loans not being paid, the lots were sold under the deed and purchased by the bank. The purchase was made solely to secure a part of the debt; and the bank now holds the lots for sale, and will sellt hem when practicable to restore to its legitimate business so much of its capital as is invested in them.

In March, 1875, the legislature of the State passed an act defining what property was exempt from taxation by the Constitution, what the legislature had the power to exempt and did exempt, and what was taxable; and declaring that all other property should be assessed and taxed. In the list of property designated as exempt from taxation, that held by the Bank of Commerce was not mentioned, and the act repealed all inconsistent laws.

Under this act, the lot of ground in the city of Memphis, purchased by the plaintiff, with the building upon it and used as a place of business, was assessed and taxed in the years 1879, 1880, and 1881, for State and county purposes. The three lots were also taxed in like manner for the years 1880 and 1881. The taxes were paid under protest, and the bank commenced the present suit to recover back the money. It appears to have been treated in the State court as a suit in equity, and the Chancellor sustained a demurrer to the bill and dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court of the State reversed the decree in part, holding that the bank was not liable for the taxes on so much of the lot and building as was used for its business, but was liable for the taxes on the remainder, and on the three lots. From this latter decree the case is brought to this court by the bank, claiming exemption of the entire property from taxation under its charter.

That statutes imposing restrictions upon the taxing power of a State, except so far as they tend to secure uniformity and equality of assessment, are to be strictly construed is a familiar rule. Against the power nothing is to be taken by inference and presumption. Where a doubt arises as to the existence of the restriction, it is to be decided in favor of the State. The restriction here, consisting in the declaration that a specific tax on each share of the capital stock shall be in lieu of all other taxes, is accompanied with authority to purchase certain real property, 'for the use of the institution as a place of business.' The bank had no express authority to invest its capital in real property not required for that use. And it is to be presumed that the exemption from other than the designated tax was in consideration that the capital would be employed for its legitimate purposes. It certainly would not be pretended that the corporation, by turning its whole capital into real property and engaging in real-estate business, could then, by force of the charter, escape liability to taxation for it under the general laws. But if the exemption could not be carried to that extent, it is difficult to fix any limit to the amount of real property which it may hold thus exempt, unless we take that prescribed by the charter. In our judgment, the limited exemption cannot be extended to property used beyond the actual wants of the corporation in carrying out the purposes of its creation. As well observed by the Supreme Court of the State, the contract of exemption, beyond the extent prescribed, ceased when taxable property was held for any other purpose.

It is true that the capital stock of a corporation may in a general sense be said to be all the property in which the capital is invested, so that an exemption of the capital stock, without other words of limitation, may operate to exempt all the property of the corporation. Railroad Companies v. Gaines, 97 U.S. 697. But where the purposes for which a corporation may hold property is specificed in connection with the exemption, the limitation of taxation designated must be held to apply only to property acquired for such purposes. This we consider to be the general doctrine established by the numerous cases cited by counsel. The case of State v. Commissioners of Mansfield (22 N. J. L. 510), decided by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, is a leading one. There it appeared that the charter of the Camden and Amboy Railroad and Transportation Company, after reservin certain imposts, declared that 'no other tax or impost shall be levied or assessed upon the said company.' The charter conferred upon the company the general power to purchase, receive, and hold real and personal estate; and it had acquired certain houses and lots in the township of Mansfield, which it let to its workmen and employes. These houses and lots having been assessed for taxes by the authorities of the town, the corporation sued out a writ of certiorari to revise their action, claiming that houses and lots were exempt under the provisions of the charter stated. The court, in deciding the case, said that the general power of purchasing, receiving, and holding real and personal estate could only be exercised to effect the purpose for which it was conferred by the government; that the power to construct a railroad and establish transportation lines upon it necessarily included the essential appendages required to complete and maintain such a work and carry on such a business, such as suitable depots, car-houses, water-tanks, houses for switch and bridge tenders, and coal and wood yards for the fuel used in the locomotives; that these were within a fair construction of the exempting clause, because they were necessary and indispensable to the operations of the company, and to the accomplishment of the objects of their charter, but that there must be a limit somewhere to the incidental power of the company to enlarge its operations and extend its property without taxation under the exempting clause, and the court concluded that the limitation must be fixed where the necessity ends and mere convenience begins; that the necessary appendages of a railroad and transportation company were one thing, and that those appendages which might be convenient means of increasing the advantages and profits of the company were another thing; that it might be advantageous for the company to purchase land and erect houses for their employes, and establish factories for making their own rails, engines, and cars, and even to purchase coal-mines and supply itself with fuel, but these are not among the necessary appendages of the company; and that the legislature, in exempting the company from all other taxes except those mentioned, only intended to include so much property as was necessary and essential to a railroad and a transportation business such as the corporation was created to construct and carry on. The court, therefore, sustained the validity of the taxes on the houses and lots in question. Numerous other cases to the same purport might be cited. The State v. Newark, 25 N. J. L. 315, 317; Vermont Central Railroad Co. v. Burlington, 28 Vt. 193; Railroad v. Berks County, 6 Pa. St. 70; Inhabitants of Worcester v. The Western Railroad Corporation, 4 Metc. (Mass.) 564. The doctrine declared in them, that the exemption in cases like the one in the charter before us extends only to the property necessary for the business of the company, is founded in the wisest reasons of public policy. It would lead to infinite mischief if a corporation, simply by investing its funds in property not required for the purposes of its creation, could extend its immunity from taxation, and thus escape he common burden of government.

As to the property which was purchased by the bank upon the sale under the trust deed, there is less reason to contend for its exemption from taxation. The express authority conferred upon the corporation to hold real property, except that acquired for the use of the institution as a place of business, was limited to such as might be taken as security for debts; while held for that purpose it was subject to taxation as the property of the debtors. Its liability in this respect, to bear its proportion of the common burden of government, was not lessened because the bank, deeming it might be more readily disposed of if freed from the debtor's right of redemption, thought proper to purchase in the title.

Judgment affirmed.

title: Bank v. Tennessee/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Bank v. Tennessee/Opinion of the Court


text:
Vietor v. Arthur

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Subsequently to June 22, 1874, Vietor imported into New York, stockings. Some of them were wholly worsted. The others were composed of cotton and worsted, cotton being the material of chief value. They were intended to be worn by men, women, and children, and were made on frames. They were also 'knit goods,' this term comprising all goods made on frames, and also all hand-knit stockings and other knitted articles of various kinds.

They were classified by the appraiser as worsted knit goods, costing over eighty cents a pound, and Arthur, the collector of customs of the port of New York, exacted a duty at the rate of ninety per cent of fifty cents per pound and thirty-five per cent ad valorem, holding that the goods were, as knit goods, subject to the duty prescribed by schedule L, class 3 sect. 2504, Rev. Stat. The importer claimed that they were dutiable as stockings made on frames, worn by men, women, and children, and subject to the duty prescribed in schedule M. Both schedules are set out in the opinion of this court.

The duties claimed by the collector were paid under protest, and Vietor brought this suit against him. Judgment having been rendered for the defendant, Vietor sued out this writ.

Mr. Stephen G. Clarke for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. Edwin P. Smith, Assistant Attorney-General, contra.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Vietor v. Arthur


text: Talk:Vietor v. Arthur

title: Talk:Vietor v. Arthur


text:
Vietor v. Arthur/Opinion of the Court

The question in this case is whether stockings of worsted, or worsted and cotton, made on frames, and worn by men, women, and children, imported after the Revised Statutes went into effect, June 22, 1874, are dutiable as knit goods, under schedule L, class 3, sect. 2504, or as stockings, under schedule M. The two provisions under which the parties make their respective claims are as follows:--

''Sched. L.-'Flannels, blankets, hats of wool, knit goods,     balmorals, woollen and worsted yarns, and all manufactures of      every description composed wholly or in part of worsted, the      hair of the alpaca, goat, or other like animals, except such      as are composed in part of wool, not otherwise provided for,      valued at not exceeding forty cents per pound: twenty cents      per pound; valued at above forty cents per pound and not      exceeding sixty cents per pound: thirty cents per pound;      valued at above sixty cents per pound and not exceeding      eighty cents per pound: forty cents per pound; valued at      above eighty cents per pound: fifty cents per pound; and, in      addition thereto, upon all the above-named articles,      thirty-five per centum ad valorem''.'

''Sched. M.-'Clothing, ready-made, and wearing-apparel of every     description, of whatever material composed, except wool,      silk, and linen, made up or manufactured wholly or in part by      the tailor, seamstress, or manufacturer, not otherwise      provided for, caps, gloves, leggins, mitts, socks, stockings,      wove shirts and drawers, and all similar articles made on      frames, of whatever material composed, except silk and linen,      worn by men, women, or children, and not otherwise provided      for, articles worn by men, women, or children, of whatever      material composed, except silk and linen, made up or made      wholly or in part by hand, not otherwise provided for:      thirty-five per centum ad valorem''.'

In United States v. Bowen (100 U.S. 508), we held that the Revised Statutes must be treated as a legislative declaration of what the statute law of the United States was on the 1st of December, 1873, and that when the meaning was plain the courts could not look to the original statutes to see if Congress had erred in the revision. That could only be done when it was necessary to construe doubtful language. We applied this rule in Arthur v. Dodge (101 id. 34) to the construction of the revision of the tariff laws.

It is also well settled that when Congress has designated an article by its specific name, and imposed a duty on it by such nae, general terms in a later act, or other parts of the same act, although sufficiently broad to comprehend such article, are not applicable to it. Movius v. Arthur, 95 U.S. 144; Arthur v. Lahey, 96 id. 112.

It is conceded that stockings made on frames have been dutiable eo nomine since 1842, and by four different enactments: subd. 7 and 9 of sect. 1 of the act of Aug. 30, 1842, c. 270 (5 Stat. 549); sched. C of sect. 11 of the act of July 30, 1846, c. 74 (9 Stat. 44); sect. 22 of the act of March 2, 1861, c. 68 (12 Stat. 191); sect. 2 of the act of July 14, 1862, c. 163. Id. 556. Now, when we find, as we do in schedule M of sect. 2504, 'stockings. . . made on frames, of whatever material composed, except silk and linen, worn by men, women, and children,' it seems to us clear beyond question that goods coming within that specific description are dutiable in the way thus provided, rather than as 'knit goods. . . composed wholly or in part of worsted.' It may be true, as suggested, that if there had been no revision, and we had been required to construe the statutes as they stood before Dec. 1, 1873, a different conclusion might have been reached. We have not deemed it necessary to institute such an inquiry, for it would be contrary to all the rules of construction to say that where in one part of a section of a statute it was provided that 'stockings made on frames, of whatever material composed, except silk or linen,' should pay duties at a certain rate, it was not plain such articles were not in any just sense 'otherwise provided for' in a preceding clause of the same section fixing the duties to be paid on 'knit goods composed wholly or in part of worsted.' The judgment below was before United States v. Bowen (supra), was decided here.

Judgment reversed and a venire de novo awarded.

NOTE.-This opinion was announced at the last term. A petition for rehearing filed on the last day of that term was continued under advisement, and at the present term overruled.

title: Vietor v. Arthur/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Vietor v. Arthur/Opinion of the Court


text:
Draper v. Springport

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. James R. Cox for the plaintiff.

Mr. William F. Cogswell for the defendant.

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Draper v. Springport


text: Talk:Draper v. Springport

title: Talk:Draper v. Springport


text:
Draper v. Springport/Opinion of the Court

The action below was brought by Draper against the town of Springport, to recover the amount of certain interest coupons annexed to certain instruments called bonds of the town of Springport, issued in payment of stock of the Cayuga Lake Railroad Company. One defence was that the bonds had no seals affixed to the signatures of the town commissioners. For this defect the court below gave judgment for the defendant, a jury having been waived by the parties. Other defences were set up on the trial, but were overruled by the court. These were: 1st, That on a certiorari (to which the plaintiff was not a party) the proceedings of the town commissioners, which resulted in the issue of the bonds, were set aside. 2d, That there was no sufficient consent of taxpayers of the town to authorize the commissioners to subscribe for the stock of the railroad company. 3d, That many of those taxpayers who did subscribe revoked their consent before the commissioners acted, which reduced the number of those consenting below that required to give the commissioners power to act.

Without expressing any opinion as to the sufficiency of the defences which were overruled, we are of opinion that the ground on which the court below dismissed the petition was insufficient. It related merely to a matter of form, and not to the substance of the transaction. The statute under which the bonds (so called) were issued was passed April 14, 1869, and was entitled 'An Act to facilitate the construction of the Cayuga Lake Railroad, and to authorize the town of Springport, Cayuga County, to subscribe to the capital stock thereof.' The fr st section authorized the county judge to appoint, under his hand and seal, three freeholders of the town, as commissioners to carry into effect the purposes of the act. These commissioners were duly appointed and qualified. The second section of the act was as follows:--

'SECT. 2. It shall be lawful for the said commissioners to     borrow on the faith and credit of the said town such sum of      money as the taxpaying inhabitants shall fix upon by their      assent in writing, not exceeding in amount ten per cent of      the assessed valuation of the real and personal property of      said town as shown by the assessment-roll for the year 1868,      for said town, at a rate of interest not exceeding seven per      cent for a term not exceeding thirty years, and to execute      bonds therefor under their hands and seal.

'The bonds so to be executed may be in such sums and payable     at such times and places, not exceeding thirty years, and in      such form as the said commissioner or commissioners and their      successors may deem expedient: Provided, however, that the      powers and authority conferred by this section shall only be      executed upon the condition that the consent shall first be      obtained in writing of the majority of the taxpayers of said      town owning more than one-half of the taxable property of      said town assessed and appearing upon the assessment-roll of      the year 1868, which consent shall be proved or acknowledged      in the same manner as conveyances of real estate are proved      or acknowledged, or proved by a subscribing witness who shall      swear, in addition to the ordinary form of affidavits of      subscribing witnesses, that the party assenting informed the      witness that he knew the contents thereof.

'The proof required to show that a majority of the taxable     inhabitants representing a majority of the taxable property      of the town have given their consent required by this section      shall be by the affidavit of the assessors or a majority of      them of said town, which affidavit, consent, and      acknowledgment shall be filed in the town and county clerk's      office of the said county, with a copy of the assessment-roll      of the year 1868, and it shall be the duty of the said      assessors, and they are hereby required, to make such      affidavit whenever the said consent shall be obtained on or      before the first day of January, 1870.

'(The time of obtaining consents was extended by the act of     April 1, 1870, to April 1, 1871.) 'A certified copy of such affidavit, consent, and      acknowledgment shall be presumptive evidence of the facts      therein contained, and shall be admitted in any court of this      State, or before any judge or justice thereof.'

Sect. 3 authorized the commissioners in their discretion to dispose of the bonds to anybody at not less than par, and directed that the money raised by the sale of bonds should be invested in the stock of the Cayuga Lake Railroad Company, and that the said money should be used and applied in the construction of said railroad, beginning at the north end as aforesaid, and its buildings and appurtenances, and for no other purpose whatever.

It was further enacted that the commissions might subscribe for the stock of the company for the amount consented to, and might purchase the stock, receive certificates, and the town should thereby acquire all the rights and privileges of other stockholders, might participate in meetings of stockholders, and be eligible as directors.

Sect. 20 authorized the commissioners to exchange the bonds at par, and issue them directly to the railroad company, receiving therefor the stock of the company.

On the 23d of March, 1871, the three assessors of the town made an affidavit in accordance with the act, stating the facts necessary to enable the commissioners to proceed.

The commissioners thereupon subscribed for one thousand shares of the capital stock of the railroad company, of $100 each, and issued the bonds in question in payment thereof. The plaintiff purchased the coupons on which the suit was brought in the ordinary course of business, in good faith, and for a valuable consideration.

Iti § apparent from the law, that the substantial thing authorized to be done on behalf of the town was, to pledge the credit of the town in aid of the railroad company in the construction of its road, by subscribing to its capital stock, and issuing the obligations of the town in payment thereof. The technical form of the obligations was a matter of form rather than of substance. The issue of bonds under seal, as contradistinguished from bonds or obligations without a seal, was merely a directory requirement. The town, indeed, had no seal; and the individual seals of the commissioners would have had no legal efficacy; for the bonds were not their obligations, but the obligations of the town; and their seals could have added nothing to the solemnity of the instruments. The fundamental authority contained in the law is found in the first three lines of the second section: 'It shall be lawful for the said commissioners to borrow on the faith and credit of the said town such sum of money as the taxpaying inhabitants shall fix upon by their assent in writing.' The commissioners executed this authority in the form allowed by the statute, namely, by a direct purchase of the stock with the bonds issued. They might have sold the bonds for money, and paid the money for the stock. Had they done this, the town would have been liable to pay the money borrowed, even if the obligations given for it had been void. Where the transaction has nothing in it of malum in se, and the parties are not participes criminis in a violation of law, money had and received by one from the other in good faith, may be recovered even though the security given therefor be void for some technical defect or illegality. This matter was sufficiently discussed in the case of Thomas v. City of Richmond (12 Wall. 349), and was very ably considered in Oneida Bank v. Ontario Bank, 21 N. Y. 490. The fact that the stock was taken directly in exchange for the bonds, instead of selling the latter for money and investing in stock, can make no material difference in the nature of the transaction. It is equally the case of value lawfully received for an innocent obligation, whether valid or invalid, given therefor. If valid, a recovery may be had on it; if invalid, a recovery may be had upon the original consideration.

We cannot agree with the courts of the State, that the form of a seal was an essential part of the transaction.

Whether the deviation from the directions of the statute, in the form of the obligations, may not have the effect of notice to the holder, sufficient to allow the other defences to be set up, is a question which it is unnecessary at this time to decide. It may admit of much consideration.

Judgment reversed, with directions to award a venire de novo.


text: Talk:Draper v. Springport/Opinion of the Court


text:
Stewart v. Lansing

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. James R. Cox for the plaintiff.

Mr. Francis Kernan for the defendant.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Stewart v. Lansing


text: Talk:Stewart v. Lansing

title: Talk:Stewart v. Lansing


text:
Stewart v. Lansing/Opinion of the Court

This was a suit by John J. Stewart to recover the interest due on coupons which matured July 1, 1872, Jan. 1, 1873, Jan. 1, 1874, July 1, 1874, Jan. 1, 1875, July 1, 1875, Jan. 1, 1876, and July 1, 1876. They were attached to seventy-five bonds of $1,000 each, purporting to have been issued by the town of Lansing, under the authority of a statute of New York, passed May 18, 1869, to permit municipal corporations to aid in the construction of railroads. The defence, stated generally, was that the bonds had been issued without authority of law. At the trial, after the testimony on both sides was in, the court instructed the jury to find a verdict for the town, which was done, and judgment entered accordingly. This ruling furnishes the principal ground of error assigned here.

The testimony is all set out in the bill of exceptions. The undisputed facts are that the county judge of Tompkins County, within which the town is situated, assuming to act under the authority of that statute, rendered, March 21, 1871, a judgment appointing commissioners to execute bonds of the town to the amount of $75,000, and invest them in the capital stock of the Cayuga Lake Railroad Company. On the 27th of the same month, at the instance of the opposing taxpayers of the town, a writ of certiorari, directed to the county judge, was issued from the Suprene Court of the State for a review of this judgment. This writ was, at or about its date, served on the judge, who, on the 1st of September, made his return thereto, sending up, as required by law, a transcript of the record of the proceedings before him which were brought under review. Of this writ, and what was done thereunder, both the commissioners appointed by the judge and the railroad company had full notice; but the commissioners, on or about the 14th of October, 1871, executed the bonds which had been authorized, payable to bearer on the first day of January, 1902, with coupons for semi-annual instalments of interest attached, and delivered them to the company in exchange for seven hundred and fifty shares of its capital stock. At the same time the commissioners took from the company a bond of indemnity to save them harmless from all costs, liabilities, or expenses on account of what had been done.

The bonds, as soon as delivered, were taken by the company to New York, and there pledged as collateral security for money borrowed. On the 27th of May, 1872, the Supreme Court in general term reversed and in all things held for naught the judgment of the county judge appointing commissioners and authorizing the issue of the bonds. This judgment of the Supreme Court still remains in force.

On the 26th of November, 1872, the company arranged with Elliott, Collins, & Co., a banking firm in Philadelphia, for the money to take up the bonds in New York, and they again pledged the bonds to that firm as security for the advances made. On the 8th of February, 1873, this debt to Elliott, Collins, & Co. was paid, and they parted with the bonds. The entire testimony as to what took place at this time is as follows:--

William Elliott, the senior member of the firm, examined as a witness, said: 'We did not sell the bonds at all. The bonds, on the 8th of February, 1873, we parted with. The cash we received on parting with them was $54,337.50. I have never seen any of the bonds since. The loan negotiated by us was paid in this way. Up to this time the loan had not been paid. It was paid by this money.'

On cross-examination, he said: 'I cannot tell through whom personally we received the bonds. Think we received them by express. They were negotiated by Mr. Delafield, either personally or by letter. All our transactions with that company have been done through Mr. Delafield. . . . I am not acquainted with John J. Stewart, the plaintiff in this action. I do not know where he lives, or in what State he lives. Neither myself or my banking firm ever had any transactions with him to my knowledge.' This testimony was taken on behalf of the plaintiff, by deposition, on the 18th of July, 1876.

Afterwards, on the 18th of August in the same year, another deposition of the same witness was taken in behalf of the plaintiff. In this deposition, looking at Exhibit D, which was as follows:

"PHILADELPHIA, Feb'y 8, 1873.

"Cayuga Lake R.R.Co.

Notes March 29, $50,000; 49 days' interest, $408.33 $49,591

-

Credit Cayuga Lake .............$4,745 83"

he said: 'This is a statement of the sale of said town of Lansing bonds by the firm of Elliott, Collins, & Co. The sale was made at the time it bears date, Feb. 8, 1873; it was made out and sent to the Cayuga Lake R. R. Co. at that date. I said in my previous examination that we did not sell the bonds in question. I intended by that to say that we did not make the negotiation for the sale of them, butt hey passed through our hands, on terms which were agreed on by others. The price at which they were sold we were consulted about, and our advice asked. We received the money and delivered the bonds on that day.' On cross-examination, he said: 'I do not wish to change, but merely explain my testimony given at the previous examination. Exhibit D is in the handwriting of my son, who generally makes out the accounts, Adolphus William Elliott. He is still living in this city. To my present recollection, the first time I saw Exhibit D is to-day. I have no recollection of ever having seen it before. The statement first credits the Cayuga Lake R. R. Co. with $54,337.50, under date of Feb. 8, 1873, that being the avails of the bonds. . . . It was sent to the Cayuga Lake R. R. Co. at the time, as I have stated before. I have no personal knowledge of Mr. Stewart; I mean the Mr. Stewart who is plaintiff in this action. I have no personal knowledge of any business transaction whatever between myself or my house and Mr. Stewart. I have no personal knowledge whether these bonds ever passed into the hands of Mr. Stewart, the plaintiff in this action, nor whether he ever paid anything for them. Somebody paid for them and we got the money.'

Talmadge Delafield, the treasurer of the company, a witness called on the part of the plaintiff, testified that Elliott, Collins, & Co. held the bonds after the transfer to them until Feb. 8, 1873, when they rendered an account of the sale. On cross-examination he said, 'I have no personal knowledge of the sale of the bonds. Never saw Mr. Stewart; don't know that there is such a man. I have never corresponded with him, nor he with me. Whatever occurred between them and him was entirely without my knowledge.'

On the 30th of May, 1874, a suit was brought in the name of Stewart, the present plaintiff in error, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York, to recover the coupons due July 1, 1873, averring his ownership thereof.

On the 20th of July, 1872, Manassah Bailey brought suit in the same court to recover the coupons of July 1, 1872. In each of the suits the defences were that the bonds and coupons were issued without the authority of law, and that the plaintiffs respectively were not bona fide holders. The suits were tried together, and upon the same evidence, so far as applicable. In both cases it was decided that the bonds were invalid, and in that of Bailey judgment was given for the defendant, because it had not been satisfactorily shown that he was a bona fide holder. In the Stewart case, however, the court used this language in its opinion: 'The suit of Stewart differs from the one by Bailey, in that it appears that the bonds were pledged as collateral in February, 1873, to Elliott, Collins, & Co., of Philadelphia, and sold by them after consultation with the officers of the railroad company. Elliott, Collins, & Co. were holders for value before maturity, and their sale to satisfy the pledge conveyed their title to the purchaser. Whether the plaintiff was the purchaser from them directly or not is not clear, but, however this may be, he succeeds to all the rights of Elliott, Collins, & Co., and occupies the position of a bona fide purchaser. As against a bona fide holder of the coupons, none of the defences interposed are tenable.' Acting on this principle, the court gave judgment in favor of Stewart for the coupons he held.

Upon the trial of the present action, the record of the first Stewart judgment was given in evidence, and the counsel for the plaintiff, who had also been counsel for Stewart and Bailey in the former suits, was examined as a witness. He testified that after the judgment against Bailey, he gave the coupons sued for in that action to a Mr. Tryon, in New York. He was unable to say from whom he got them back, nor when. Neither did he tell from whom he got the bonds and coupons which were used in evidence at the present trial.

As between the railroad company and the town, the judgment o the Supreme Court reversing and annulling the order of the county judge invalidated the bonds. If the bonds had not been delivered before, they could not have been afterwards. The judgment of reversal was equivalent between these parties to a refusal by the county judge to make the original order.

The next inquiry is whether, on the evidence, Stewart occupied in this suit a better position than the town. That depends on whether the testimony was such as to make it the duty of the court to submit to the jury, under proper instructions, the determination of the question whether he was in a commercial sense the bona fide holder of the coupons sued for.

It is an elementary rule that if fraud or illegality in the inception of negotiable paper is shown, an indorsee, before he can recover, must prove that he is a holder for value. The mere possession of the paper, under such circumstances, is not enough. Smith v. Sac County, 11 Wall. 139.

Here the actual illegality of the paper was established. It was incumbent, therefore, on the plaintiff to show that he occupied the position of a bona fide holder before he could recover. This, it is contended, was conclusively established by the judgment in the suit on the coupons of July, 1873. The issue in that case was as to the ownership of those coupons, and did not necessarily involve an ownership of the bonds. We have often held that coupons detached from bonds are negotiable instruments, and capable of separate ownership and transfer. Clark v. Iowa City, 20 Wall. 583. While the court in its opinion, when rendering the former judgment, used language broad enough to cover the bonds, this language must be confined in its effect to the issues on trial, that is to say, the ownership of the coupons alone. In Cromwell v. County of Sac (94 U.S. 351), it was distinctly held that a determination in one action, that a plaintiff was not an owner for value of certain coupons sued on, did not estop him from proving in another action that he was such an owner of other coupons detached from the same bonds. The proposition in this case is but the converse of that.

This makes it necessary to inquire whether upon the testimony the burden of establishing a bona fide ownership was so far overcome at the trial as to make it improper for the court to take that question from the jury. The testimony is noticeable rather for what is omitted than for what was introduced. It would seem to have been easy to prove the exact facts as to the 'parting with' the bonds by Elliott, Collins, & Co. Although the bonds had been pledged in New York before, Elliott, Collins, & Co. took them from the company, not from the New York holders. The company negotiated the loan from them, and on taking up the bonds in New York made a new pledge. This was all done after the judgment of the Supreme Court upon the certiorari. In the former suit a judgment had been secured only by proving a bona fide ownership in the plaintiff. Notice of the necessity of establishing the same fact in this case was, therefore, given the plaintiff and his counsel. Acting on this notice, the same counsel who appeared in the former case went to Philadelphia to get the necessary testimony. He called on the senior member of the firm of Elliott, Collins, & Co. and took his deposition. In this deposition it was clearly shown that although that firm had 'parted with' the bonds, and got some money when they did so, which was put to the credit of the company, they did not sell the bonds. That was done, if done at all, by some one else. Not satisfied with this testimony, the same counsel went again to Philadelphia to make another effort. He took with him a paper he had found in the handwriting of the junior member of the firm, now known as Exhibit D. Instead of examining the junior partner, he went again to the senior partner, who evidently knew but little personally about the transaction, and stopped with him, although it appears that the witness who made out the exhibit was then in the city, and it was again stated that the sale was not negotiated by the firm; but that the bonds only passed through their hands under terms which had been agreed on by others. Who those others were is not stated. Neither the actual purchaser nor his representative in the negotiation was named. Stewart, the plaintiff, was not known to any of the witnesses examined. No one had ever seen him. His counsel, though examined as a witness, gave no information in respect to him, and was also unable to tell from whom the Bailey coupons were received. It is by no means certain from the testimony whether such a man as the plaintiff is actually in existence. Even the witness Elliott was not asked whether he knew of the decision of the Supreme Court when his firm took the bonds. The sale, if actually made, was at an enormous discount. Although the Bailey coupons are included in this suit, another action for their recovery was pending at the time Elliott, Collins, & Co. parted with the bonds, in which the same defences now relied on were set up. The counsel now appearing for the present plaintiff was also the counsel for Bailey in that action, and for the railroad company when the bonds were got from the commissioners. It would have been apparently so easy to make the necessary proof, if it could have safely been done, that we are unable to account for its absence, except on the theory that a disclosure of the whole truth would be fatal to a recovery. While it would not, perhaps, have been improper for the court, in the exercise of its rightful discretion, to leave the case to the jury on the evidence, we cannot say it was error not to do so. In Pleasants v. Fant (22 Wall. 116), it was held that 'if the court is satisfied that, conceding all the inferences which the jury could justifiably draw from the testimony, the evidence was not sufficient to warrant' a particular verdict, the jury might be so instructed. Railroad Company v. Fraloff, 100 U.S. 24; Oscanyon v. Arms Company, 103 id. 261. This case, in our opinion, comes under that rule.

The record in the Bailey suit was certainly admissible in evidence upon the issue at to the bona fide ownership of the coupons of July, 1872.

Without, therefore, considering any of the other questions presented for our consideration, on the argument, the judgment is

Affirmed.

title: Stewart v. Lansing/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Stewart v. Lansing/Opinion of the Court


text:
Strong v. Willey Same

APPEALS from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

Strong, in 1873, entered into a contract with the Board of Public Works of the District of Columbia for the construction of a sewer in Washington City. On the 6th of May Willey agreed with him to build a portion of it according to the specifications set forth in that contract with the board, and to receive payment therefor at a stipulated price per foot in his orders on the board, payable in sewer bonds. Disputes having arisen, Willey filed his bill, Sept. 7, 1874, in the court below against Strong, and also made defendants the Board of Audit for the adjustment of such indebtedness of the District, as that arising under Strong's contract. The bill alleges that the work had been performed, and that Strong, after giving certain orders on the proper authorities of the District, which had been recognized as valid assignments, was attempting to induce the Board of Audit to ignore the orders in favor of Willey. It is further alleged that there was a balance due, for the payment of which Strong refused to give an order. The bill prays for an order restraining Strong from interfering with the Board of Audit in the settlement for the work so done by Willey, and from asking or receiving any certificate, bond, order, & c., therefor; for a specific performance of the agreement set up in the bill; and for general relief.

Strong's answer admits his agreement with Willey and the work done thereunder, but avers that he had given orders for the entire payment thereof, and denies interfering with the acto n of the board on them. He filed, in February, 1875, his bill in the court below against Willey and his surety, the Commissioners of the District, and the Board of Audit, setting up the same contract, and alleging that Willey had not complied therewith, but had been paid thereon an amount in excess of what was due him. These allegations Willey denied in his answer, and insisted that Strong was indebted to him. The matters arising upon these bills of complaint were by the respective complainants referred to the arbitrament of William B. Webb, under a stipulation that his decision was to be final and conclusive upon all questions arising in the investigation of the cases; that the court should make a final decree based upon his report, and that no exception should be made thereto. Webb made his report, finding that there was due to Willey from Strong $15,413.21, and the court passed a decree therefor accordingly.

In the entry of the decree it is stated that the court overruled the exceptions to the report, but they are not set forth in the record.

Strong filed bills of review, which were dismissed on demurrer, and he appealed.

The remaining facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Nathaniel Wilson for the appellant.

Mr. L. G. Hine and Mr. S. T. Thomas for the appellee.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Strong v. Willey Same


text: Talk:Strong v. Willey Same

title: Talk:Strong v. Willey Same


text:
Strong v. Willey Same/Opinion of the Court

These are bills of review to correct alleged errors of law apparent on the face of a decree. The two original suits were in reality but one. They were considered and decided together, and both are included in the same decree. They relate to controversies growing out of a single contract between the parties. The nature of these controversies is fully disclosed in the pleadings. The case of the appellee against the appellant is so stated as to admit of alternative relief. The object of the appellee evidently was to have the amount due him ascertained, and to preserve his securities. His contract called for payment in a certain class of orders on the Board of Public Works of the District of Columbia; but if for any cause he could not get valid orders, or if, by the wrongful acts of the appellant, the payment of orders actually drawn was refused when presented, compensation might be decreed to him in money, under the prayer for general relief.

In the progress of the litigation the parties agreed to refer all the matters of difference included in their respective bills to the arbitrament of William B. Webb, whose decision was to be final and conclusive, and his award was to be made the basis of the decree of the court. Pursuant to this agreement the reference was formerly ordered. The arbitrator, after hearing, decided that the sum of $15,413.21 was due the appellee from the appellant. To this award the appellant filed in court certain exceptions. What these exceptions were does not appear from the record, but it does appear that they were overruled, and a decree entered against the appellant for the sum named to be collected by execution, as at law.

It is now contended that this decree is erroneous, because, 1, it does not dispose of the issues raised by the pleadings; and, 2, it is for a sum in excess of that claimed by the appellee in his original bill. In our opinion neither of these objections is good. By decreeing the payment of money the court has in effect found either that the appellant had no fund in the hands of the District authorities on which he could draw, or that the appellant, by his improper intereference to prevent the payment of the orders he drew, made himself liable personally for money.

It is not true that the amount of the decree is greater than the demand of the appellee in his original bill, if the orders theretofore issued to him were not paid. He expressly averred in the original bill that there was due him $27,670 under the contract, if his orders were not paid, and in his answer to the bill of the appellant the amount is stated to be $16,899.93. It was only in the event of his holding the orders and getting pam ent thereon that the balance was stated at a less sum.

The reference of the matter in dispute to the arbitrator, coupled with the agreement that his award should be made the basis of a decree in the suits, is clearly a waiver of the objection that the remedy was at law and not in equity, if any such objection in fact existed, which we are by no means inclined to admit.

The case is to be decided upon the face of the original record, and not upon the averment of new facts in the bills of review.

Decrees affirmed.


text: Talk:Strong v. Willey Same/Opinion of the Court


text:
Ex Parte Gordon (104 U.S. 515)

PETITION for a writ of prohibition.

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Arthur George Brown and Mr. Stewart Brown for the petitioner.

Mr. John H. Thomas, contra.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Ex Parte Gordon (104 U.S. 515)


text: Talk:Ex Parte Gordon (104 U.S. 515)

title: Talk:Ex Parte Gordon (104 U.S. 515)