The weekly Panola star. [volume] (Panola, Miss.) 1857-1881, 1866-09-15


fHl lw M
iHF Fl M i
ff
ri
ff tfa 8ff
tf tia
M 81 ff.
fU HHmt b Hatafm
af ffu Htmt ai
~ H Hll # WlH e. Hhl w.
% H HH Wtah l
Il aHl NJ N#Ifa III fFHesfy
w if HHItsiH II. fhf H#Hl
y mi ftl0f mt fmf iF
H n iha IF tHaafi ftltufa IA
~ ha ianf q mm m
fliIHlIH nHmilel ~ tflas
uf au 40 Hnt a. llrf fIni
~ ftlllli y q Ith fhs original snl
1mrmial complaints H. Dun n Me-
hf hlod ~ pliiuff In effHf. Il H.
mll ~ .auh#I twaking N lis AZ
mnffrf ~ lhe aneutfd declaration
"a u mnf we'll m meafdai hs fft
nlrn plaintiff dUta ngl ua ~ ant
'psrIaI o1ninrt, tui ~ 70 breach 81
official duty, IN ~ matter ih elich
o has wrtnal interest. and mrh
bf.leli expressly charged
Whether Che trlim b. fr wofh
and labor ~ rtclaiming plaintiff
swamp land NJ whether u = founded
upon The ileh Of defendant breach
" official duty IN MT causing plain
iiH's baud 10 bc levied and drained
~ not paying plaintiff for doing II
himself or not paying Iack ~ plain.
ti0, aa his share Of The swamp land
funds, Che whole amount he mid for
his scrip a. 20 much money. be- wns
entitled by law 10 have applied ID tho
lcyccing and drainage Of biz artiu-
lar land (all Of which views have
more or less prominence IN this dec
laralion) IN neither view, Is It legally
possible 70 maintain this action upon
tho facts here appearing.
The PLAINTIFF hope of recovery
seems to be based upon the idea that
each purchaser of scrip locating his
land and receiving title thereto under
the net Of 1852, acquired with the
land tho right TO have the money
paid by him for the scrip expended
towards retaining his particular
land, or paid to him II he reclaimed
II himself, and this seems 10 be the
foundation Of the breach Of official
duty, or the implied contract relied
on for n recovery here.
This is an entire misconception of
the rights Of the land owners AS well
as Of the duty and obligation of the
commissioner under this act. Itdoes
not contemplate an application of the
fund for special private advantage,
but for the general good of the coun-
try, section or neighborhood in which
the land is situated. II contcmplates
a system, established by the original
act, granting the land to the State.
This act of Congress was designed
"to enable the State TO construct nee
essary leyees and drains to reclaim
the swamp and ovcrflowed lands
therein" and the grant is made upon
that express condition. The duty of
the commissioner imposed by the act
of the Legislature was public and
gencral-not private or special. The
defendant was not bound, as alleged,
to appropriate the money received
from plaintiff, for the scrip, to drain
ing and ditching plaintiffs land for
his benefit alone, and without regard
to the object intended by this orig
inal grant. Nor was he bound to
appropriate said fund to the payment
Of plaintiff, for any labor, which
plaintiff voluntarily, without defend
ants authority, expended on his own
land.
We do not question the correctness
Of the doctrine held in the case Of
Brown VS.. Lester, 18th s. d NJ, page
39i, and other cases cited to the same
point-that public officers are liable
for omission or breaches Of public
duty, involving private injury. They
correctly state an old and familiar
rule. But in this case the declara-
ton wholly fails to present such n
case. The allegation of the dcclara-
ton relied on, in the argument of
counsel, IL, that the defendant did
not appropriate the money received
by him from plaintiff for land scrip,
"to ditching and draining his land
for the benefit Of plaintiff" This
was not the defendants legal duty.
His duty was TO reclaim the swamp
and overfowcd lands in this county,
generally, by "levecing and drain
ing" them, and to appropriate for
that purpose The money received from
the sale Of scrip, or tho labor OBJ
tanned BY It's use, as a common fund
for the accomplishment Of the gen
cral purpose.
Plaintiff has no right therefore to
complain that the money he paid for
his scrip, was not appropriated to the
reclamation of his land.
Both the original and amended
declarations wholly fail to state any
cause Of action, and the demurrers
were therefore properly sustained.
Let the Judgment be affirmed.
An interesting case was tried last
week in our Circuit Court, of ID. W.
McAIaster vs.. Southern Railroad
Company, in which the damages wcrr
LII "a e0n nnn H. I.,,rt L.tJ