The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-11-25

them from Omaha TO Philadelphia. The declaration
was fled In the District Court OF the Territory for
Douglass county and describes the plaintiffs there as
San ASSOCIATION OF persons, not Incorporated,
formed for the purpose OF carrying on the
banking business In Omaha" and AYERS
that they were thus engaged when the action was
brought The answer OF the defendants was a gen.
era denial and an allegation OF special contract
between the parties exempting them from liability
for The loss OF the property. Replication was nled
to this, charging loss by the negligence OF the car
riers. subsequently the peadlngs were filed In the
Circuit Court OF the United States for that district
where the express company at once hled demurrer
to the replication. Before hearing the demurrer was
overruled and the tried resulting In yer.
dict Tor the plaintiffs for about $4,000. upon which
judgment entered. The company bring the
cause here alleging error in The rulings below In
that the Court refused TO instruct the jury that by
the special contract set up the express company
ceased 10 be common carriers ana became private car
rers ana there could therefore be recovery and in
refusing to charge tina. there could In no event be
recovery beyond the value OF the property as repre-
sented the time or delivery to the carriers there
having been an ayernent that property OF the value
Of $4,000 had been delivered FOR transportation at
agreed rates for S5609 The point Is also made that
there Is nothing IN the subject matter OF The cause
to authorize its removal from the District Territorial
Court to the Circuit Court; and that the pleadlngs,
quoted above, in respect OF the citizenship OF the
parties, 10 NOS SNOW that the case Is within the pro-
visions OF The Judiciary act IN that regard, comforting
jurisdiction the Circuit Court, and enabling 1t 10
take cognizance OF the case. Argued by j. Hubey
Ashton FOR plaintiffs III error, no one appearing Tor
defendants.
No. 2lI. Olre, Bronson, Pgotntlgtn Error, rs. STE
phen Kin,pton.-Error to the Court OF Appeals or
the state OF New lork.-This is another coin con-
tract case. on the l4th OF May 1888 the defendant
borrowed OF the plann In error 81, 500, ana 10 Sc
cure the repayment gave his bond and mortgage,
pay able In gold or silver coin July J, 1864, with In
telest in com. The form OF the bond ana mortgage
Rhodes, reported In Wallace, 227. Payment was
offered IN treasury notes, which was declined by
The plaintiff in error, on the ground that coin was
required 500 IN com at that time august, 1864
being worth 1925 in Treasury notes. bill was filed
lii the Supreme Court OF New YORK, praying that the
mortgage might be discharged. The complaint was
dismissed ut special Term OF the court, but the Gen
eral Term reversed the Judgment and directed the
mortgage 10 be cancelled. The Court OF Appeals
affirmed the latter Judgment, and The cause was
| brought here, where 1t was now submitted on be-
half OF the plaintiff IN error the decision IN
vs.. Rhodes having virtually disposed OF the ISSUE
John ]. Townsend Tor painllI III error, the deien-
dant not appearing.
Pldtnt!B IN Error, ps Z. S. Rouze ana TIE home
| or the Friead!ess Us. The Sdnle-Error to the SUI
preme Court Of Missouri-The plaintiffs IN error IN
these cases are pubic institutions OF the CITY OF ST.
LOUIS, incorporated under the laws OF MISSOURI and
by the acts OF incorporation exempted fIom taxa
ton by the States and III respect OF the Home or tue
Frendless, the statute provided that certain sec
OF the act OF 1916. making the charters or such
institutions subject to alteration, suspension or
repeal, should not apply The University was incor-
| porated February % 1858, and the Home February
Of that year. Inc new State constitution, adopted
In 1865 authorized the Legislature to impose taxes
on such Institutions and to carry that provision into
| effect an act was passed the same year
| provided exemption Accordingly the Collector OF
| st. LOUIS levied taxes upon the property OF the
pants n efror VINO s1ed S oat an tha r..
cult Court OF The State the INJUNCTION was granted
but the Supreme Court reversed the decision, mold
ing that the provisions OF the charters as TO exenp-
ton did not constitute q contract betwe the state
and tia Institutions me is here for review, the
| plalntiG IN error contendng that inasmuch as the
1
| cooperating them aid not contain any provision
restraining tne Legislature from sucn legislation the
acts valid, and the considerations involved In
the establishing OF the institutions created contract
between The state and the parties undertaking 1t; aid
The prohibition II the present consultation concll-
sively that in It's absence The Legislature was
| ree TO act the manner II oid. IL Is insisted
I amre "e sucn consracts and mat
when accepted they become franchises OF the
corporations concerned and beyond the reach OF the
Legislature 10 repeal Is too well settled TO require
the citation OF authorities. To suppose that any con-
sideratons beyond the public objects Tor which these
| corporations were created were necessary as the
basis OF contract Is mistake. Tue consideration
is found III the nature OF those objects, the accept
ance Of the charter ana the consequent IMPLIED I'M
| purpose ior which tney were granted. such has
been the settled law OF tins court siace the case O.
| Dartmouth College VS.. Woodward. The defendant
in insists that the Legislature had no power 70
promise that the state should never tax these inst-
iutlons without requiring bonus, or some consld
Grafton in lieuot taxes; and that by these acts OF
incorporation 1t did not atieAlptto 90 So because
| the language OF tne acts does NOV EXPIRES ~
! say that taxes shall never be levied and
| that the State shall forever be bound.
| The language not being expressed the law
| will not imply such meaning me charters, 1t
| Is conceded, beyond the repeal oil the Legsla
| ture and the control OF the State: but the exemp-
ton from taxation is q mere gratulty, intended to
last during the pleasure OF the state and subject TO
repeal at any time. The Legs allure omitted, as the
agent OF the state TO provide Tor any commensurate
| advantage TO the State or for aug check upon the
institutions, tnd this omission IL fatal 70 the Char
terra as contracts against taxation liut il 1t was the
intention OF the Legislature to forever exempt IRON
| taxation II had no power IN agent OF the state
to do 1t. Il. G. Curtis Tor pantA III error Blair y
| Dick for the STATE.
| No. 2d7. Lessee Of Pr0bst az. Brock.
No. go. ShetdS e al. Us. R00t.-iAese cases were
| continued.