GRAY v. COAN. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA. No. 481. Argued December 15, 1871.— Decided December 18, 1871. To give this court jurisdiction over the judgment of the highest court of a State, brought here by writ of error, it must appear that some question under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act was made by the pleadings, or passed upon by the court. THE case is stated in the opinion. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE delivered the opinion of the court. This is a motion to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Iowa. On looking into the record we find no question under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act made by the pleadings or passed upon by the court; and we have often held that it must appear affirmatively from the record that such a question was made and passed upon before this court can acquire jurisdiction to review the judgment of a state court upon writ of error. The motion must therefore be allowed and the writ of error must be Dismissed. Mr. Daniel Gray for plaintiff in error. Mr. Walter I. Hayes and Mr. A. Y. Cotton for defendants in error. DAVIDSON v. CONNELLY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. No. 510. Submitted January 12, 1872. — Decided February 5, 1872. A writ of error to a state court is dismissed because no question was decided by that court of which this court has jurisdiction under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act. THE case is stated in the opinion. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE delivered the opinion of the court. On looking into the record we do not find that any question was decided in the state court of which we have jurisdiction under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act. The writ of error therefore must be Mr. Lorenzo Allis for plaintiff in error. Mr. James Smith, Jr., for defendant in error. Dismissed. JONES . FRITSCHLE. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. No. 59. Argued November 22, 1872. - Decided January 6, 1873. Dismissed because the amount in controversy does not give the court jurisdiction. THE case is stated in the opinion. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE delivered the opinion of the court. This controversy relates only to certain land in Macon County, Missouri, the value of which, as stated in the answer, was one thousand dollars. This statement is confirmed by the evidence. The amount in controversy, therefore, does not exceed two thousand dollars, and we have no jurisdiction of the case on appeal. The appeal must be dismissed. Mr. James A. Buchanan for appellant. DIAZ v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. No. 97. Submitted February 10, 1873. Decided March 3, 1873. Pico v. United States, 2 Wall. 279, and Peralta v. United States, 3 Wall. 434, followed. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE delivered the opinion of the court. I am instructed to say that the decree in the Circuit Court for the District of California is affirmed on the authority of Pico v. United States, 2 Wall. 279, and Peralta v. United States, 3 Wall. 434. It is not thought necessary to do more than to refer to these Affirmed. cases. Mr. S. O. Houghton for appellant. UNITED STATES v. STAFFORD. CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION IN OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TEN NESSEE. No. 105. Argued January 20, 1873.- - Decided January 27, 1873. A certified question is answered coupled with a statement that, through subsequent legislation, it has ceased to be of any importance. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE delivered the opinion of the court. We are all of the opinion that the question certified in this case must be answered in the negative. As the act of Congress has been so modified that the question has ceased to be of any importance, no comment is thought necessary. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Solicitor General for plaintiff. NORTON v. JAMISON. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA. No. 192. Submitted December 6, 1872. - Decided January 13, 1873. Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 129, followed. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE delivered the opinion of the court. Our decision in this case must be governed by the case of Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 129, and the writ of error must be Mr. Miles Taylor for plaintiffs in error. Mr. D. G. Campbell for defendant in error. Dismissed. OULTON v. SAN FRANCISCO SAVINGS UNION. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. No. 206. Argued April 7, 1873. - Decided April 28, 1873. Oulton v. Savings Institution, 17 Wall. 109, followed. MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court. Taxes were collected of the bank in this case by the defendant, to the amount of three thousand and sixty-six dollars and sixtythree cents, which the bank paid under protest, and brought this suit in the state court to recover back the amount, and the suit, on motion of the defendant, was removed into the Circuit Court. Suffice it to say, without entering into particulars, that the pleadings, proceedings, and evidence in this case are substantially the same as in the preceding case, and the court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs for the whole amount claimed, and the defendant sued out the present writ of error, and for the reasons assigned in the preceding case the judgment must be reversed. Judgment reversed and the cause remanded with directions to issue a new venire. Reversed. Mr. Attorney General for plaintiff in error. Mr. C. E. Whitehead for defendant in error. HUMBIRD v. JACKSON COUNTY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. No. 209. Argued April 9, 1873. - Decided April 28, 1873. Olcott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678, followed. MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court. The case is controlled by the rule established by this court in the case of Olcott v. Supervisors of Fond du Lac County, decided at the present term, Olcott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678, to which reference is made for the grounds of the judgment in this case. Judgment reversed and the cause remanded with directions to issue a new venire. Mr. M. H. Carpenter for plaintiff in error. Reversed. Mr. H. L. Palmer and Mr. F. W. Pitkin for defendant in error. CHARLESTON v. JESSUP. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. No. 234. Argued February 14, 1873. — Decided March 31, 1873. Tomlinson v. Jessup, 15 Wall. 454, followed. MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the court. This case is governed by the decision in Tomlinson and others, appellants, against the same defendant, 15 Wall. 454. Upon the authority of that decision the decree must be reversed, and the cause be remanded to the court below with directions to dismiss the suit; and it is so ordered. Reversed. Mr. D. T. Corbin for appellants. Mr. I. G. Barker for appellee. BANK OF NEW ORLEANS v. CALDWELL. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. No. 255. Submitted January 28, 1873. Decided March 3, 1873. This case is dismissed without an opinion, as no exceptions appear to have been taken during the trial. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE delivered the opinion of the court. Ordered, by the court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana be affirmed, without an opinion, no bill of exceptions appearing to have been taken during the progress of the trial. Mr. William M. Evarts and Mr. J. Hubley Ashton for plaintiff in error. Mr. P. Phillips for defendants in error. SOUTH CAROLINA ex rel. ROBB v. GURNEY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH No. 22. Re-argued October 20, 21, 1873.- Decided November 3, 1873. State v. Stoll, 17 Wall. 425, followed. MR. JUSTICE HUNT delivered the opinion of the court. The same judgment is ordered in this case as in State v. Stoll, 17 Wall. 425. Mr. W. W. Boyce, Mr. A. G. Magrath and Mr. B. R. Curtis for plaintiffs in error. Mr. D. H. Chamberlain for defendant in error. THE ADELIA. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 65. Argued November 3, 1873. — Decided November 17, 1873. On the facts detailed in the opinion, the court holds that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the libellant. THE case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court. The steam tug Adelia had fifteen barges in tow on the Hudson River, bound from Albany to New York. The barges were arranged under the directions of the master of the Adelia, four abreast, and in four tiers. The libellant's barge, Alaska, was on the larboard side of the front tier, about three hundred feet in rear of the tug. The other tiers followed at short intervals, some eight or ten feet apart. About two o'clock in the morning, when a mile and a half below Hudson, the tug ran aground on the east side of the river, and the tow-boats, being perfectly helpless, came upon her, and the VOL. CLIV-38 |