The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1867-04-11
DECISIONS OF THE HIGH COURT
ERRORS AND APPEALS.
OCTOBER TERM. 1866.
Bot. Med. College
of Memphis,

Bot. Med. College
of Memphis,
No. 9,743 VS..
Samuel Atkinson, ct al.
Opinion cfMs Court delivered by Justice
Harris.
Error to the Circuir of Carroll
County.
Plaintiffs in error commenced this
action In the Circuit Court of Carroll
county to recover an amount agreed
to be paid by defendants testator for
ten shares in the Botanico Medical
College of Memphis, joint stock com
pany, A copy of which agreement
under the hand and seal of the defend
ants testator is filed with the com
plant, as exhibit. CA. and made q
part thereof
The defendant plead first, general
denial of every allegation in plaintiff 8
declaration, concluding to the county,
I'd, That plaintiff had no power by
its charter to make the contract sued
on, and that the same is void.
3D., That the contract sued on is
without consideration and voluntary.
The cause was submitted to the
Court and jury trial waived and the
record recites, that, "after argument
the Court determined that the contract
sued on in this action is not valid I'M
der the charter Of plaintiff. 1t is
therefore ordered that the defendant
60 hence,&c.
From this judgment the plaintiff
prosecutes this writ of error.
The record shows an agreement be-
tween the parties shat the issue
presented by the pleadings was sub
mitted to the Court, under the statute,
Rev. code, art. 1877. p. sos, pro-
viding for trial Of issues in causes by
the court and that to the ruling of the
court, as to the questions of law pre-
sented by the issue. The plaintiff by
its attorney excepted at the time of
said ruling--that no evidence was
adduced upon the trial of said cause,
except the Statute of Tennessee, in
cooperating the plaintiff, and therefore
the defendant by his counsel valves
any objection to the want of Bill of
Exceptions, and consents that the
cause may be revised on its merits, by
the High Court.
Under this agreement the only
question to be decided is, whether the
Judgment of the court below-"that
the contract ''sued on, in this action,
is not valid contract, under the char.
ter of the said plaintiff" is erroneous
AS is here commended.
On this point, we are referred to a
decision of the Supreme Court of
Tennessee in the case of the Bontanico
Medical College of Memphis VS.. Will
liam A. Wood, Plaintiff in Error. We
are only furnished with certified
copy Of the opinion of the court.
From which it does not distinctly
appear that the contract sued on there
was one of the same character as that
upon which this action is founded.
Nor does it appear what was the pre-
else point before the Supreme Court
of Tennessee.
The opinion is very brief, and so
far as we are enabled to understand
it, in the absence of full transcript
of the record, would seem to decide
that the contract sued on is for law
full purpose within the powers con-
fined by its charter upon the company
and if ii be admitted that this decision
was made upon one of these contracts
upon familiar principles, the decision
of that court as to the powers conferred
by the Statute of Tennessee, charter
ing this institution would be adopted
in all other jurisdictions.
Independent however of the decis-
ion we are satisfied from an examina-
ton of the provisions of the charter,
that they are full and ample, and au-
thorize the company "to do all things
in their judgment, "for the
prosperity and well being Of said
college not inconsistent with the laws
of the State or of the United States.
We see nothing in the contract or
in the objects sought to be accomplish
ed by it, inconsistent with the charter.
The institution was established "for
the instruction of young men in the
various departments of medical
science" A library, museum, Anato-
mical cabinet, Chemical and Philo-
sophical apparatus, as well as Hospital
would seem to be not
only convenient and suitable, but
necessary" in the strictest sense, "for
he '.proper' instruction of young
men in the various departments Of
medical science"
The position assumed by counsel
or the defendant in error, that the
contract sued on is without consider
.tion, is not supported by anything
ppearing in this record. The con-
ract on its face, is not only under
cal, and importing therefore, a con-
Iteration, but it expresses in terms
Consideration valuable in law, so far :
s this Court can know from the evil
ence in this record. The obligation /
f defendant purports to be given, in :
of the purchase by de- !,
'nudHJS Ill error, Vi CeH SuaFeS OF n
twenty-five dollars each of the stock of q
lid joint stock company. =
The defendants attempt to impeach
lie consideration here expressed, by !,
ea, as they may do, in actions =
'unded on any sealed instrument, :"
lder our statute, Rev. code, p. 494. -
t. 102. But in the absence of any y
her evidence than the contract itself, y
e cannot say that it is without con y
1eration, nor could the Court below, y
determine without other proof. -
Proceeding to adjudicate the cause Y,
! its merits, according to the agree ~
emit of counsel The Judgment of "
e Court below will be reversed, and :.
is Court rendering such Judgment, ~
the Court below should have rend. =
ed, orders Judgment to be entered 2,
re for the amount of the debt, dam p
es and costs in favor of plaintiffs ~
low. P,e
~ pl
SUPERFICIAL INFIDELs.-Sir Isaac wi
wton set out in life a clamorous in tn
Ell, but, on nice examination of the to
dences of christianity, he found asi
son to chanoa his onininn Whap fol-