The Lansing state Republican. [volume] (Lansing, Mich.) 1855-1874, 1859-07-19
Supreme Court.


issue:
CAas. H. Waterman a. Robert p. Tom,.-Error
to Wayne Circuit. Judgment affirmed, with 81
damages. D. c. Holbrook for defendant in error.
Huqh H. Wright y. O'cen Dudley and others.
Motion by A. Gould to docket and dismiss the
case. G. w. n. Lothrop, contra. Motion de-
MED.
| Joseph 4. To,cer e. Detroit and Mlraukee X.
H. Co.-Motion by A. Gould to docket and dis
miss. H. McCurdy, contra. Motion denied.
Charles II. NereU and othersv u. Blair d Glib
son.-Case reserved from Jackson circuit. Ar
gued by D. johnson for plaintiffs, and A. Blair
for defendants.
Lyeurgus Edgerton and others .. Aeaath"'
Mne.man. to Circuit Court Commits
sioner of Berrien county. Submitted on briefs
by d. Johnson for plaintiffs in error.
Henry r. Sanger .. Wesley 7ruesdaa.-Case
reserved from St. Clair Circuit. Douglass Hol-
brook for complainant, Emmons Pond for de-
PENDANT. Ordered certified to the court below
that the plea filed in the case is bad.
| EJenezer Arderson and others =. John e.
| Baughnan and others-Opinion by CHRISTIAN
CT. j. Held, tha. where part of the descrip-
ton in a mortgage was false and impossible, but
by rejecting that part perfect description would
remain, such false and impossible part should be
rejected, and the mortgage held good. Decree
| of the Circuit Court for the county of Wayne,
in Charcery. affirmed.
Roger Bromley u Tie Peopte.-Certiorari to
Circuit Court Commissioner of Wayne county.
| Re.argument ordered
| Eurotas Z. Hastings .. RosreH 7. Merrill
Appeal from Wayne circuit, in Chancery. De-
cree below affirmed.
Erei;ne .Streeter g. 1lcraader Paton.--Case
reserved from Wayne circuit. Argued by q. V.
n. Lothrop for Plaintiff, and II. G.. Knight and
ii. T. Bsckus for defendant.
Cook d Ualdron q. Tie Village Of HiIis,lale
Appeal from Iillsdalc circuit, in Chancery. Ar
gued by T. NJ Cooley for complainan,s, and C..
A. Stacey for defendants.
Joseph 4. Focler .. The Detroit d. Niicau-
kee Railroad Co.-Argued by III. McCurdy for
plaintiff in error, and A. Gould for defendant in
error. Opinion by CnErsTIAscY,J 4 Justice $
summons against railroad company NAV be
served on a conductor under the law of 1919,
which law ia not repealed by the Justices act of
1855. Judgment reversed.
dustin Wales p. IicrIaier H. Ne~Jould-
Appeal from WAYNE circH.t, in Chaneery. Ar
cued by c. C. Bates and d. c. IIolbrook for
complainant, and S. T. Douglass for defendant
The People, on tie relation Of the So. Narus
Falls Shin Canal % i'"s i"o'for "eheTU.
ms was ,n application on the part of the Canal
company for a mandamus to compel the Auditor
General to remit the taxes on their lands The
several Judges delivered opinions. They all
agree that the act of the Legislature authorizing
such remission of taxes is constitutional
Judges Martin and Chrstiancy think the lands
Of the company contracted to be sold by the usual
contract of sale, are still exempt from taxation
until the purchaser becomes entitled to a deed.
Judges Manning and Campbell hold the contrary,
and a mandamus is awarded requiring the Audi
tor General to remit the taxes all that portion
of the lands not contracted to be sold
John u. Cook and Henry ITaldron q. The
Village of Hihsdale.-Opinion by CAMPBELL, J.
Decree of the IIillsdale circuit in Chancerv, af-
irmed.
Charles ". Ne,ceU and others a. Justin Blair
and William II. Gibson-It IS ordered that it
be certified to the CiIcuit Court for the county
of Jackson, as the opinion of this Court: That
the first. second, fourth and fifth questions re-
served should be answered in the affirmative.
That in answer to the third question we are Of
opinion that the plaintiff is at liberty to examine
the garnishee anew and fully in the Circuit Court,
but not to cOrtradic: him nor to enlarge or vary
his admitted liability. That so much of the sixth
question as properly appertains to the case re-
served, is answered by the replies to the other
questions.
William ". OLrer 4. Silas " Eaton. 1t is
ordered that it be certified to the Circuit Cour,
for the county of Monroe, as the opinion of this
Court, that the question of intent is question
OF fact and not of law, and it is not within the
provision of the Court to determine the validity
of the mortgage in question upon the case as
reserved