Beers et al. v. People's Ferry Company of Boston................................................. ..............................393 Beers v. State of Arkansas..... .443 Brown v. Wiley et al........ Buckley et al. v. Withers...................................................................................................................... 84 Buckner v. Commercial Bank of Manchester................................................ 108 Burnley v. White et al.......... Cambuston v. United States....... Carroll et al. v. Dorsey et al...... Carryl v. Taylor........ .....235 Cavazos et al. v. Mussina et al.. Chaffee v. Hayward...... Chapman v. McCargo... Christ Church v. The County of Philadelphia....... Commercial Bank of Manchester v. Buckner.......... Cooper v. Roberts........ Covington Drawbridge Company v. Shepherd et al......................... Curtenius et al v. Morgan....................................................... ............ 26 .........108 ..467 .227 1 501 ................................ 29 ............ Penslee v. Sampson............................... ........571 People's Ferry Company of Boston v. Beers et al......... ........393 PAGE Perin v. McMicken........ ........133 Philadelphia, County of, v. Christ Church... Phillips's Lessee v. Gazzam.... Platenius v. State of Arkansas.. Same v. Same.......... Poillon et al. v. Grant et al.... Ramsey v. McFaul................ Ransom and Wenman v. Corporation of New York............ Roberts v. Cooper........ Sampson v. Peaslee....... Secombe et al. v. Steele.. Selden v. Myers et al............ Selden et al. v. Thompson...... ...............................................................195 Shannon et al. v. Brown...... ..507 Shepherd et al. v. Covington Drawbridge Company. .......... 227 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. |