The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1877-10-23
knpreme Conrt DecisIons.

WAsHIsaros, October ~ The ipl-
lowing decisions were rendered ~ ia"
Supreme Court: Pratt Il Co, W Grand
Trunk Railroad, Canada, error 10 Circuit
Court, Eastern District 0l Michigan.
This Was sn sction 10 recover OF th"
company damsges for violation of ~
duty in respect 10 property shipped from
Liverpool 70 st. Louis and carried over
lts road from Montreal 10 Detroit The
goods were stored by tho company on
their arrival nj Detroit In the freight
depot there, and were destroyed by Or"
The next night. The question Wa
whether this was good delivery Ia the
Michigan Central railroad, N" succeed
Ing carrier, ~ claimed by tn" de.cndart
The court held that whore the Garner
allows goods ~ be dcpDsll"d m such Way
without notice OF deposit OF good, II
amounts u notice and IL dnlIv"fy, b"ro"
the succeeding road ws "a charg" "i IN"
property and defendant entitled 10 Juig
ment IN bis favor Affirmed. Ju'tir"
Hunt delivered the opinion.
Mcmillan vs.. AndenOn. error tp
Supreme Court Of LoulslAns In tins
case il 10 held that constitutions pro
vision that no State shall deprive Huy
person oil life, liberty or property, docs
not require that persors tsIsd by tb" law
Of the state shall be- present, or have An
opportunity 10 be- present, when TAI u
assessed against him, nor does u r"qgir"
that taxes be collected by Il Judicial pro
ceedIng; Also that q statute which gives
. taxpayer = right 10 enjoin IT. c"ll"c
ton, and have the validity Of the tai do.
clded by 8 court Of justice, affords duo
process Of law, notwithstanding II f"-
quires the party 70 give security IN al
ysnce ~ In other injunction cAse,
Affirmed. Justice Miller delivered the
opinion In the case.
New Orlesns Canal and Banking
Company vs. Montgomery 81 a..
appeal from the Circuit Court
Tor the Southern district Of MississippI
In thn case II 10 decided that where
decd Of trust referred W the lands \, ~ n
certain range, and II appears subs"qusrlly
the number WA the wrong one, and 10
the meantime another deed oi trust u
given on tie sAme piece OF property
under the right descnptlon, court Oi
equity will not reform tbe formor de"i
By correcting the description and max"
II frat lien on the property, L0.wiih.
standing tho later deed, and this Ia 30
because the grsntsrs Of the later de''d,
having no notion .oi any alleged
N stake in the earlier Ors,
cannot be deprived ota lien created ~
taeir favor without violation Of To-.
piainest principles Oi rsasoo, Justice and
law. Rsversed. Justice Sssybe de.
nysred the opinion.
Hatch vs. CsddIngton. error " the CIR.
| cult court for the southern district u
New York. The ausslioo 10 this cA,e ~A'
whether the Prs-Idett oil the hInnesJtA
and Pacific Railroad WA author
izsd by the company 10 ssli
or hypothecsts the hrt mortgage
| bonds Of such tum or sums ~ he might
lhInk for its interests, snd W bOrro '
money on the company behalf At such
raGes OF interest ~ be might think pro
Der, and whether therefore ne dRposition
OF certain bonds 70 COddingiOn bound
the company. The c0HrI says II would
be difficult 70 see what ~ordt would hAVe
been more comprehensive for the grant
Of power claimed than thOse ued, and
affirm the decision made below m hn
favor. Justice Strong delivered the oInH-
ION.