To this testimony on the part of complainant, is opposed 1. The fact that the notes and mortgage are payable to the order of Isett & Brewster, and are in their possession, which raises the legal presumption that they are their own property. 2. The separate answers of Isett & Brewster to plaintiff's bill and interrogatories, in which they both deny the exclusive trust for plaintiff, and assert their interest to the extent of their debt. 3. Brewster denies, in his deposition, that the letter of Butler to Finley was ever read to him or by him, or that he ever gave assent to the claim of Finley. 4. Certain letters from Finley, the plaintiff, to Brewster and Butler, written in October, 1865, in regard to the matters now in controversy, in none of which does he claim that these notes are for his benefit, until after Isett & Brewster are first paid, and in one of them, dated October 20, to Butler, he says: "As I understand you and Mr. Brewster, the mortgage was given with the intention of protecting my interests as well as Mr. B. When Mr. B.'s claim was satisfied, the transfer of the property to be made to This is the way I understand my position now." me. 5. The statement of Butler, in his deposition, that, at an interview between himself and Finley and Brewster, in October, Mr. Brewster spoke of his prior claim on the notes and mortgage, and that, while Finley did not in words admit it, he made no denial of it. We are of opinion that the weight of the evidence is clearly in favor of the statement of the defendants, that they were to be first paid out of the notes, before they were to transfer them. The decree of the Circuit Court, giving the two notes last due to plaintiff, is therefore as favorable to him as the facts justify, and must be Mr. George C. Bates for appellant. Mr. William F. Brannan for appellees. DUTTON v. PALAIRET. Affirmed. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 184. Decided November 8, 1869. Affirmed upon the authority of Bronson v. Rodes, 7 Wall. 229. THE case is stated in the opinion. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE delivered the opinion of the court. The same questions substantially are presented in this case as in the case of Bronson v. Rodes, 7 Wall. 229, heretofore decided at this term. The principles settled by that judgment require that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania be affirmed, and it is so ordered. Mr. David W. Sellers for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendants in error. Affirmed. UNITED STATES v. MOWRY. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 186. Argued March 29, 30 and 31, 1869.- Decided April 12, 1869. United States v. Adams, 7 Wall. 463, followed. THE case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. The petition of Mowry sets forth that railroad cars were needed on the Pacific Railroad, in Missouri, for the transportation of men and supplies in the military department of the West, then in command of General Fremont, and that, on the 22d September, 1861, he made a contract with Chief Quartermaster McKinstry, at the head of that department under General Fremont, to construct fifty box cars and fifty platform cars, the former for $825 each, and the latter for $700 each. These cars were afterwards constructed, approved and taken into the service of the government. The payment of the price on this contract was among many others within that military district, suspended upon allegations of fraud and irregularities committed therein, and a board of commissioners appointed to investigate them and report to the Secretary of War. The petitioner presented his claim before this board, charging the contract price, amounting to $76,250. This board, after investigation, allowed to the petitioner $58,750, and gave him a voucher for that amount, the payment of which was accepted by him from the government, as provided for by an act of Congress. The Court of Claims allowed the balance of the contract price, $17,250. The case falls within the decision of this court just rendered in the case of The United States v. Adams, 7 Wall. 463. Under the circumstances the petitioner is concluded by the finding of the board and acceptance of payment. The decree must be Reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to enter a decree dismissing the petition. Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dickey and Mr. E. P. Norton for appellant. Mr. R. M. Corwine, Mr. J. M. Carlisle and Mr. J. D. McPherson for appellee. UNITED STATES v. MORGAN. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 191. Argued March 29, 30 and 31, 1869.- Decided April 12, 1869. Reversed on the authority of United States v. Adams, 7 Wall. 463. THE case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. The petition in this case sets forth that Morgan, under a contract with the government, in September, 1861, purchased five hundred and twenty-two horses, for which he was to receive $130 each; that the government has refused to pay the price according to the contract, and that a balance remains of $7830. This contract was made with the petitioner by Reeside, an agent of General Fremont, who had been authorized to purchase two thousand horses for his military department, at the price above stated. The claim was presented to the board of commissioners appointed to investigate contracts made in this department, and, after an examination into the claim, it was reduced $7830, the board allowing only $115 per head for the horses instead of $130, the contract price; and gave to the claimant a voucher for the amount at this rate, $60,076, payment of which was afterwards accepted by him. from the government. The Court of Claims decreed in his favor the contract price, deducting the above payment. The case falls within the decision of The United States v. Adams, and this decree must, therefore, be reversed. The case is remanded with directions to dismiss the petition. Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dickey and Mr. E. P. Norton for appellant. Mr. J. M. Carlisle, Mr. J. D. McPherson and Mr. R. W. Corwine for appellees. UNITED STATES v. BURTON. UNITED STATES v. GEFFROY. UNITED STATES v. HIGDON. APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. Nos. 192, 193, 197. Argued March 29, 30, 31, 1869.- Decided April 12, 1869. Reversed on the authority of United States v. Adams, 7 Wall. 463, and United States v. Morgan, ante, 565. THE case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. These are all cases of contracts made by Reeside with the claimants for the purchase of horses, under the same circumstances as stated in the case of United States v. Morgan, ante, 565, and must follow the same result. The decrees of the Court of Claims in each case must be reversed, and the causes remanded, with directions to dismiss the petitions. Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dickey and Mr. E. P. Norton for appellant. Mr. J. M. Carlisle, Mr. J. D. McPherson and Mr. R. W. Corwine for appellees. DAVIDSON v. STARCHER. SAME v. KING. SAME v. McMAHON. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Nos. 329, 330, 331. Argued January 8, 1869. - Decided January 11, 1869. No question under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act having been passed upon by the court below, this court has no jurisdiction over the judgment of the state court. THE case is stated in the opinion. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE delivered the opinion of the court. In these cases it appears, on looking into the record, that no question under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act was passed upon by the court. No ground appears, therefore, of jurisdiction in this court over the judgments of a state court, and the several writs of error must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Mr. L. Allis for plaintiffs in error. Mr. R. P. Spalding for defendants in error. Dismissed. MOULDER v. FORREST. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 371. Argued February 5, 1869. — Decided February 15, 1869. A writ of error is fatally defective if it lacks the test required by law, and the defective writ cannot be amended here. THE case is stated in the opinion. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE delivered the opinion of the court. The motion to dismiss the writ of error for want of the test required by the process act of 1789, 1 U. S. Stat. 93, must be allowed. The defect in the test was doubtless occasioned by an oversight of the clerk below; but a majority of the court is of the opinion that the writ cannot be amended here without departure from its established practice. Insurance Company v. Mordecai, 21 How. 195; Porter v. Foley, 21 How. 393. Mr. Nathaniel Wilson for plaintiff in error. Mr. W. S. Cox for defendant in error. Dismissed. EX PARTE PARGOUD. ORIGINAL. No. 9. Original. Argued February 18, 1870.- Decided February 28, 1870. A writ of mandamus to the Court of Claims is granted on the authority of Ex parte Zellner, 9 Wall. 244. PETITION for mandamus to the judges of the Court of Claims. The case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. This is a petition on behalf of Pargoud, the relator, for a mandamus to the Court of Claims to compel them to allow an appeal from a decree against him in that court. The case falls within the Case of Zellner, 9 Wall. 244, and the motion must be granted. Motion for a peremptory mandamus granted. Mr. Thomas J. Durant for petitioner. Mr. Robert S. Hale for respondent. |