The Snprerue Court bandee! dowu a decisión in tbe iamons case of Wilfred ti. Barnes va. Charles H. Mauly in which the formpr was hot on the trail of the Eiijah Morgau thoDsauds in this city. The story of what Mr. Eaintis claims frotn the Morgan estáte is an old one. Tbe facts have been expleded iu the prosa trom time to time. Some time ago Mr. Earnes flled a i bill in tlie Kalamazoo circuit coort against Charles H. Manly, tbe administrator in the estáte of Elijuh Morgan, in which he asked to have set aside a ■ lot of deeds of the Morgan estáte; to I have tho court declare that Mr. Morgan defranded his mother; to oblige Mr. Manly to render au accounting ts him ; aud to have a jndgment against the Morgan estáte of $150,000 in favor of tbe Eames estáte. Lawrence & Bntterfleld, of this city, aud Dallas Boudeuian, of Kiuaniazoo, attorneys for the Morgan estáte, dein arred to the bill ou tbe ground tbat j it set iip inatters which were now i barred by thu statute of limitations. Jndge Buck, of Kalamazoo, 1 ruled the demnrrer, tbns sustaiaing the position of Mr Bames. The Morgan estáte carried the raatter to the supreme court aud that enurt bas said tbat tbo bill is demurrable. In other words, uuless the snpreme court, vvill allow tbe bill of complaint to be amended in soine way, Mr. Eames has lost all cbauces of establisbing his clajm against the Morgan estáte.