, 1876-11-03
THE RAILROADS.
IMPORTANT CASES IN IOWA.
EpsrfdE ChYrespoHdsrce nf TAa Tribune.

DEs Mofsgs, H., Nov. 1.-The stnto Supreme
Court Inns tnst made a decision which will be Ut
interest to nl towlia and cities through which,
railroads pass. III 1872 tho Legislature passed
law providing that railroad companies should
make return to tho Btato Executive Council vi
tho length Of road and vnlao of all raflrontl-
property, together with tho gross earnings Ut
each road and It's branches. On this report tho
Executive Council were to fix tho nsscsstncnt
for taxation, and remit to ench county tho
amount and value pf such property In such
county. Tho County Supervisors were
required To apportfon this tax to each
eortling to t'u value tereof--tlle property u 10
taxed nt the sa'nt rntcs rs other property. Tho
City ynf Dubuque, by ndyico Of ca,inscl, claimed
tlat this Inv wns and IN con.
trsxsnton t'; III Art sce = of tho Consultation,
for speculative prt!!t sball lo taxed tho same ~
individuals; aud levfcl tax against the Chicago,
Clinton s. Dubuque. nsll tho Clinton, Dubuque
Of 1872. Tic rallroai conpan'es claimed The
assessment tu be void md illegal. An agreed
caso was taken to tile Supreme Conrt, wfGrc 1t
was decided tllat Tho law Of 1879 was not uncon
by reason Of tho peculiar nature Of railroad.
property, was intended to point out the method
Ut asccrtalninE tho value Of tlis kind Of prop
crty, and not to exempt II from the burdens OF
taxation, my muro tlian tho property Of indt-
vldua1s.
IMPORTANT RAILROAD LITIGATION.
AninpOrtant casu Ia before tho United States
Circuit Court. whcl, Will soon be argued before
tho full Bench. It Is tho Union National Hank
Of Chicago against certain members Of tho 1owa
d Missouri Railroad Construction Company
nn action vi debt. The rai1ronl construction
company. whtcl, Ia stock company, tnatlc co1-
for which u was to receive in payment bonds Of
the railroad company to tho amount OF 500, ,00U.
It received hchonds, which IL divided up among
the members, who then turned them over to tho
with stock therefor. A Judgment was
oltalncd against tho construction company for
largc sum; aud, to recover tho amount Of this
Judgment, this action Ia brought against the In
tl!vfaaal members Of tho construction compa.
their stock. in tho company. Tho defendants
claim that they have paid their full stock by the
deposit Of tho bonds. The plaintiffs deny TINT
tho deposit Of tho bunds is n payment for stock.
Tho case involves n very nico question Of law,
quito Important to have settled.
RAILROAD pRCiAtoN--CONRLfcTo OF COURTS.
1n March, 1877, s. ]. Mckinley was Injured on
thu Chicago s. Northwestern Hallway. at How
ari Junction; 11c brought nn action for dam
ages, in tho Linn District Court, and was given
q verdict for sla,000 against the railroad com
pany. The company appenlel, and, at tf,e Dc
te1nbcr term Of the Supreme Court, tho decision
Of the court below was reversed. Tho op,nion
District Court Of Linn County, Dec. 0, which
was fled in that court Dee. Ii. On tho samo
aay {Dec' 15 tl'e railway company filed pc
tic United States Circuit Court; md,
Fob. 2l, 1870, flied plsadlngs in the United
States Circuit Court. Fell. =. 1876, the conlpu-
ny flied petition In the State Supreme Court
Adams, Of the Supreme Bench, suspcniltng tho
order made at the December term, as provided
BY scc- 3,20l Of tho Code OF 1873. Tlirrcupon
Court to dismiss tho petition for rchcarlng, on
tho ground that. q proccdcndo having issued to
tho court below, the case was then In tho Linn
District Court, md sincu Ind been removed to
the United States Circuit Court on pot1tion to
tho Linn District Court. Tho Supreme Court
ovcrrulctl the motion to dismiss, on the ground
TINT tho proceedings taken by tho railway CON.
rany in tho Linn District Court for removal of
not affect tho Jurisdiction Of tic State Supreme
Court, which still continued for tho purpose OF
relearing,-tlorcby denying that tho company
bad removed tho cause to the Federal court.
The opinion filed ut tho December term was re-
affirmed, that tho casc 10 ramandcd to ths Linn
District Court for new trlal, or that the COM
pany mny accept q Judgment in thss court for
$1,000. Tho caso ls therefore In tho Federal and
State courts, and tlo questi9n Of juris-
Court at Washington for final adjudication.
a recent decision Of Justice Miller, Of the
United States supreme Bench, filed last week
in the United States Circuit Court for this
dstrlct, appears to have bcaring upon tho
above case, TN tho question Of Jurisdiction. It
was tho case Of Bracken, assignee, Va. john
stone. Tho question was whether 4 Stato
property OF al, iMsolyent debtor, Is divcstcd OF
Jurisdiction Of tho same by thu filing Of pctl-
tton In bankruptcy In tho Federal court, subsc-
quent to iesuntg attachment, but prior to tudg-
,s,ent in the 9tnte court. Tho United States
District Court says 1t Ia. Tho United States
Circuit Court by Juatlco Miller, Oh appeal, says
It Is not.