18115. Bank of Tennessee (Nashville, TN)

Article Text

COMMON PLEAS-SPECIAL TERM-Held by Judge Beach.-Nos. land 12. COMMON PLEAS-EQUITY TERM-Held by Judge J. F. Daly.-Nos. 7, 1. 27, 14, 29. COMMON PLEAS- -TRIAL TERM-Part 1-Held by Chief Justice C. P. Daly.-Nos. 1157, 1045, 1144, 1145, 1098, 1945, 1106. 1080, 559, 900, 560. 1128, 1059, 1146. Part 2-Held by Judge Larremore.- Nos. 1217, 484, TITO 'GIII 1159, 1001 '848 '178 '8911 '6FII 92411 '9611 '9611 1192 9776 MARINE COURT-GENERAL TERM-Held by Chief Justice Alker and Judges McAdam and Goepp.-Apmore Appears '9 pue 9 moss peals ** 'OT 'F '9 'ST MARINE -TRIAL 1.-Adjourned for the term. Part 2.-Adjourned until November 3. Part 3.-Adjourned until Friday, the 31st inst. COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS-Part 1-Held by Judge Cowing.-The People vs. Francisco A. R. Sanbria and Joas B. Revilagua, forgery (continued); PREMPT 'SA eures uyor 'SA email Dowd, felonious assault and battery. Part 2.-Adterm. the JOJ peurnof UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT-Held by Judge "SA Perdon "W W 'SA FORSTAL Schooner J. E. Earll: A. Merollo VS. William Ruger et al.: Traders' Insurance Company vs. Steamtug U. S. Grant; J. G. Unnevehr VS. Steamship Hindoo; H. Fleming vs. Steamship Staincliffe; P. Rockaway vs. Barge New Baltimore: W. A. Duell vs. Steamship Niagara; George Matot vs. Steamtug A. B. Preston: H. J. Myers vs. J. E. Stow: Mary Scott vs. Steamtng :'In 10 Med M 'D "SA TO 10 mustime T Preston: "Я "V "SA REDDSTIO 'A : TV 10 180.11 T. 'M 'SA unin Charles "V UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. 1879. "LT 00 'NOLONIHSYM The following business was transacted in the Supreme Court of the United States to-day:On motion of R. T. Merrick David T. Watson, of 01 practice. Pa., were Pittsburg, and admitted Welty McCullough, of Greensburg, No. 233. Sherman A. Ricker, appellant, vs. Nathan Powell et al.-Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. This is an appeal from the Circuit Court, dismissing the petition of the appellant for leave to file a bill of review in the case of Nathan Powell Samuel J. Walker, Ricker and others in said court. Without intending to decide that an appeal will lie to this court trom an order of the Circuit Court refusing leave to file a bill of review for newly discovered evidence, this Court is df opinion that the refusal in the present case was right. The decree of the lower court is therefore affirmed with costs. The opinion was delivered by the Chief Justice. "2I "SA 'S *109 No. Bowers, treasurer, &c.; appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi.-Decree affirmed. with costs. The N Justice. Chief em sq peounous SW.M decision written opinion. No. 953. Alexander Fraser et al., plaintiffs in error, detied 07 10 'SA No. 725. H. C. Dugger et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. 01 persodised distings 01 [" 10 Boodle a M the hearing of the cause on its merits. No. 9 (orginal ex parte). Augustus B. Perry, petitioner.-Rule to show cause granted, returnable November 10. No. 10 (original ex parte). The Denver and Rio Grande Railway Company, petitioner.-Assigned for 1880 9 Amount no No. 1,028. The District of Columbia et al., . appellants, vs. Charles King.-Appeal from the Supreme JO monour "O JO our JO Count W. Willoughby docketed and dismissed, with costs. No. 550. R. R. Shepherd and L. Clepham, plaintiffs 'S 'S JO mothout one 'SA up Henkle dismissed, each party to pay its own costs. No. 240. The National Bank of the Republic, plaindisibils 01 'f suy "SA 'JOJJE III Un pus worddns UI 'CI "II sq III Breadly "H No. 842. Jacob O.Tirestman, plaintiff in error, The First National Bank of Mount Pleasant, Westmoreland county, Pa.-Motion to dismiss submitted by D. T. Watson, in support, and Welty McCullough, m No. 8 (original ex parte). Ira G. French, petition for mandamus.-Submitted by John Reynolds, in favor, and W. H. Smith, in opposition. No. 3. Samuel F. Craig, appellant, VS. Jacob Smith and George D. Hale.-Argument continued by C. S. -du 20J 'H 'If pus authorite JOI -redds 201 'S 'O sq contribed pus seelles, lant. No. 10. Daniel Hand, plaintiff in error, vs. Johnson Hagood, substituted, &c.-Passed. No. 5. Original ex parte; Alvin R. Reed, petitioner. Argued by George H. Boutwell for petitioner, and by Attorney General Devens in opposition to the petithon No. 52. The Memphis and Charleston Railroad Company, plaintiffs in error, vs. the State of Tennessee et al.-The Memphis and Charleston Railroad Company is a creditor of the Bank of Tennessee. This bank Was chartered and wholly owned by the State. By the charter the State was pledged to the bank's support, to make good any deficiency in its funds. and to give indemnity for all losses arising from such deficiency. The bank having failed and made an assignment, and its affairs being in liquidation in the Chancery Court for Davidson county at Nashville in a suit brought by the State, the present plaintiff in error filed its cross bill for the enforcement of the guarantees contained in the bank's su 'suff punors the uo State ear charter. a sovereign State, she could not be sued in her own courts except with her own consent, and that she was in no way responsible for the liabilities of the Bank of Tennessee. The demurrer was sustained and the cross bill dismissed. Upon appeal the decree below was affirmed, on the sole ground that the repealing act of 1865, which took away the right to sue the State, was a constitutional and effective exercise of power. To reverse this affirmance the present writ of error is prosecuted. The case is submitted here on the brief of the late G. J. Pillow for the plaintiff in error, and by B. J. Lea for the defendant in error. George Hoadley York MON our JO B all OS[U America "I a pus committee of Tennessee bondholders, who are equally interested in the decision of the question whether or not the act of 1865, which withdrew the right of action against the State of Tennessee, propus 1870 pus 1834 JO on up JOJ pepta given in the act of 1855, was constitutional. -upuid "I" 10 S Thomas '6 pus 8 '2 '9 'SON tiffs in error, VS. the United States.-Dismissed at the cost of the plaintiffs in error. No. 11. Henry Gerke et al., appellants, vs. Mary A. and George H. Seaverns et al-Bismissod with costs under the nineteenth rule. 'M "SA from "II 'H Y 'H "H 19. *** behalf no JOHN A JO "O-"I" 10 "V continued. of counsel, No. 13. Otis Tufts and Sarah M. Bigelow, appellants, vs. The Boston Machine Company.-Dismissed under nineteenth rule. No. 15. The Board of Trustees of the Wabash and Erie Canal, appellants, vs. J.K. Gaspen.-Dismissed under nineteenth rule. No. 16. The American Emigrant Company, appellant, vs. The County of Adams.-Argument commenced by P. D. Barrett for the