LIST OF CASES REPORTED. AGE Ahl Johnson... Arkansas, State of, v. Bank of Washington.... ....................................................................................................................530 Arkansas, State of, v. Beers...................................................................................................................................................................527 Arkansas, State of, v. Platenius.... Chapman v. McCargo..... 59 ... .205 .280 .208 Cooper v. Roberts............ Christ Church v. The County of Philadelphia...... ....................................................................................................... 26 Commercial Bank of Manchester v. Buckner..... ............... United States v. Hensley. ................. .261 United States v. Pacheco................................................................... United States v. Sunot et al....................... ................................................................... ..................... Warner v. Norton et al......... Washington, Corporation of, v. Smith.......... Watrous, Judge, ex parte.. Webb v. Leitensdorfer et al...... White et al. v. Burnley...... Morris et al....... .............. 135 ..280 235 .541 .443 535 .427 THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, AT DECEMBER TERM, 1857. BENJAMIN F. MORGAN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. ALFRED G. CURTENIUS AND JOHN L. GRISWOLD. Where the Circuit Court adopted the construction of a State statute which was placed upon it by the Supreme Court of the State, the decision was correct; and a different construction of the statute subsequently placed upon it by the Supreme Court of the State will not authorize this court to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court as having been erroneously given. THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Illinois. It was the same case which was before the court at the preceding term, as noticed in 19 Howard, 8. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. It was argued by Mr. Washburne for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Ballance for the defendant, upon printed arguments. Mr. Washburne referred to the cases of Frisby v. Ballance 2 Gilman, 141, and Frink v. Davit, 14 Illinois Reports, 304; and contended that the last decision had declared the law of the State, by which the deed of Bogardus to Underhill did not, by the subsequently-acquired title of Bogardus, pass the title in fee. The decision of the Circuit Court should be reversed, as being contradictory to the established law of the State. Mr. Ballance admitted that the United States courts could follow the State courts in the construction of their own statutes, and, when a new construction was adopted, could change and decide cases as they might arise, according to the new construction. But he denied that the Supreme Court could gather up all the old cases which had been settled under the law as it then stood, and make them conform to the new law. |