THE case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court in these causes. Upon examination these cases are found to be substantially the same with the case of The United States on the relation of Thomas Butz v. The City of Muscatine, No. 93, heretofore decided by this court at the present term. (8 Wall. 575.) Our opinion is the same as in that case. The judgment in each of these cases is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded to the court below for further proceedings in conformity to the views of this court as expressed in the case referred to. Reversed. Mr. James Grant for plaintiffs in error. FLANDERS v. TWEED. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. No. 108. Argued March 8 and 9, 1870.- Decided March 21, 1870. Flanders v. Tweed, 9 Wall. 425, followed. THE case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana. The suit was brought by Tweed in the court below against Flanders to recover one hundred and twenty-three bales of cotton. The answer of the defendant states that he was a deputy general agent of the Treasury Department of the United States; denies that the cotton belonged to the plaintiff, but was the property of the United States; that the cotton was shipped to him as such at New Orleans, with other lots, by a treasury agent at Shreveport, under a contract with the plaintiff and the Treasury Department, in relation to cotton known as Confederate States cotton, captured in war and turned over to the Treasury Department by officers of the army; that by virtue of this contract, and certain services rendered by the plaintiff, three-fourths of the number of bales received by the defendant were to be turned over to him, and onefourth reserved to the United States; that the one hundred and twenty-three bales in suit are the one-fourth thus reserved; and that the three hundred and seventy-two bales claimed by the plaintiff in his suit, No. 3872 of the docket of the court, are the three-fourths coming to the plaintiff under the contract. The defendant also claims that the one hundred and twenty-three bales in question are captured or abandoned property. A large amount of evidence was taken in the cause on both sides upon the issues thus raised. The cotton had been sequestered and delivered to the plaintiff on his giving a bond as security for the same. The court rendered a judgment for the plaintiff. It was rendered on the 29th January, 1868. A statement of facts is found in the record, at p. 83, by the judge, filed May 13, 1868, some three months and a half after the rendition of the judgment. This case, therefore, falls within the views expressed in the suit between these parties involving the question of damages for the detention of these one hundred and twenty-three bales of cotton, together with the three hundred and seventy-two bales disposed of in a previous suit in the court below against the defendant, referred to in his answer, the opinion in which has just been delivered. 9 Wall. 425. For the reasons given in that case the judgment must be Reversed for a mistrial, and the cause remanded for a new trial. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Field for plaintiff in error. Mr. J. Hubley Ashton, Mr. T. D. Lincoln and Mr. E. C. Billings for defendant in error. WEED v. CRANE. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 123. Submitted March 15, 1870. Decided April 4, 1870. There being no exception to a ruling or to anything which took place at the trial, there is nothing in the record to be reviewed, and the judgment below is affirmed. THE case is stated in the opinion. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE delivered the opinion of the court. On looking into the record of this cause we find no exception to any ruling of the court upon the trial, nor any exception to the report of the assessor, nor to any ruling of the court in relation to it. There is nothing, therefore, in the record which can be reviewed. here upon error; and the judgment of the Circuit Court must be Mr. J. B. Robb for plaintiffs in error. Affirmed. SUPERVISORS v. DURANT. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF IOWA. No. 134. Argued and submitted March 18, Affirmed on the authority of Supervisors v. THE case is stated in the opinion. 1870. Decided April 4, 1870. Durant, 9 Wall. 415. MR. JUSTICE STRONG delivered the opinion of the court. All the questions raised by this record have been considered and disposed of in the opinion filed in No. 133. For the reasons stated in that opinion this judgment must be affirmed. The judgment of the Circuit Court is Mr. H. Strong for plaintiffs in error. Mr. James Grant for defendant in error. Affirmed with costs. WASHINGTON COUNTY v. UNITED STATES ex rel. MORTIMER. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF IOWA. No. 137. Argued and submitted March 18, 1870. Decided April 4, 1870. Affirmed on the authority of Supervisors v. Durant, 9 Wall. 415. MR. JUSTICE STRONG delivered the opinion of the court. This case differs in no essential particular from No. 133 decided at this term. For the reasons given in the opinion filed in that case this judgment must be affirmed. The judgment of the Circuit Court is Mr. H. Strong for plaintiffs in error. Mr. James Grant for defendant in error. Affirmed with costs. NORTHERN BELLE v. ROBSON. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR No. 141. Argued March 21, 1870. -Decided April 11, 1870. It is the duty of a carrier who offers barges for service to have them often examined and thoroughly inspected, so as to be sure of their condition. THE case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court. In this case the same parties as in the case just decided, (The Northern Belle, 9 Wall. 526,) about a month later made another contract for the carrying of wheat in the same barge Pat Brady for the same voyage, the barge being this time attached to the steamboat Northern Belle. After the accident of the 12th May, which we have just considered in the other case, the barge was merely repaired by removing a plank or two which seemed to be injured, and replacing them by others. In two or three days she was again in use, and on the 19th June took on board another cargo for Robson. Very soon after leaving Hastings the barge was run on a sandbar, and soon commenced leaking, so that the wheat was wet and greatly damaged. For this Robson recovered a decree in the District Court, which was affirmed on appeal to the Circuit Court. Much testimony was taken to show that, owing to the violent wind and the condition of the channel, this running of the barge on the sand-bar was inevitable. It is not necessary to inquire whether this were so, for we are satisfied that the loss would not have occurred if the barge had been sound and fit for the voyage. It was the rotten condition of her timbers, as shown by the same testimony that we have commented on in the former case, that rendered her unable to resist the ordinary pressure which such accidents subject barges to every day. We do not deem it necessary to go into the testimony on this further than to remark that the failure of the owners of the Pat Brady to have her thoroughly inspected after the first accident is without excuse. She was then an old barge, and the circumstances of that accident should have suggested a suspicion of her condition. But we do not place the decree on the ground of special want of care in that particular. It is the duty of the carrier who offers these barges for service to have them often examined and thoroughly inspected so as to be sure of their condition. He should not use a barge after she has become, from age, or decay, or injury, unfit for use, and should repair them often and well, so long as they can by repairing be safely used, and no longer. For this the best interest of all parties requires that he shall be held rigidly responsible. The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed. Mr. J. W. Cary for appellants. Mr. N. J. Emmons for appellee. KENOSHA v. LAMSON. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. No. 143. Argued March 22 and 23, 1870.- Decided April 4, 1870. Knox County v. Aspinwall, 21 How. 539, followed. The City v. Lamson, 9 Wall. 477, followed. THE case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Wisconsin. This was an action of assumpsit upon 516 coupons against the City of Kenosha, described in the declaration and notice accompanying it. They were all given in evidence, and when the plaintiff rested, the counsel for the defendants prayed the court to instruct the jury that the bonds, as well as the coupons, should have been given in evidence, which was refused. And further, that the city possessed no authority to issue the bonds, which was also overruled. The verdict was for the plaintiff. The first question was decided against the plaintiff in Knox County v. Aspinwall, 21 How. 539, and the second in a case at the present term between the same parties. The City v. Lamson, 9 Wall. 477. Judgment affirmed. Dissenting, MR. JUSTICE MILLER. Mr. J. W. Cary for plaintiff in error. Mr. M. H. Carpenter for defendant in error. LONG v. PATTON. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. Little v. Herndon, 10 Wall. 26, followed. In Illinois, a will probated in Virginia is as available in proof as if probated in Illinois. THE case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. The suit in ejectment in this case was brought by Mrs. Patton |