, 1880-03-30
CENTS -,

sssss|:es sss!: :: 4 s e.: ::: :R:s
,ss W!s Az ts S3 psGfe1Is s Iesf Tsct co2t to !'
affirmed, 1So4'a witn sS1lr | 70 RECOVER I:
ca''pany, NJ piaE s : erfor. y: Tic Sla!e g
1,eM1'essee.. = to the sppreme. Court
eyef ea esdnsasf fan' ' Teanessee IL es as saf
ai,tor Of tho Hank Of TENNESSEE, q, debt
which Tie hank owed to tho Mc!nphis y
Gfsstqn t s 1s1, Spa s GGomny Al u s s ssis s
Of Tennessee contained! the following pro.
vision: "si1tts may bo brought against the
State in sucl, manner and N sllcli Cotfts ns
te essait!ro nay hn Sh@ossG,}eh5 stn}e ~
oii tic ground that stato eould not be aued
without Us own coi1sent. TIE tal!roru @ Co!n. t
accrued the State, by y provision Of its Con.
stitutlol,, did consent to DO sued, and that tho
repeal Of tllat provision was yo1 lor the
fas ! VIZ cse.2y nsae9 e. ePt qsstSn ssstene s
demurrer and dismissed tue conip'ailiant's'
bill. rho State Supreme Court, an appeal,
1nadc hecrce on the express grounu ttas taes
tShse?s tSsS stae al se was rs" v"iid an ti not come
Ts''i Tat dee!son as 'oS'''AI i efs assiE!ed fsf
error. This COHrL ll0ld9 tAt Llle IlHHk
BY BY J the provision Of The State Constitution
above cttcd was not in legal effect judicial,
remedy for the enforcement OF tEelr con-!
tracts withit. 1t was merely a consent t1 DO
| ton. When TINT adjudication was 1al there
was no power tn the Courts to enforce IT,.
This statc might rcfusn: to pay,-that Is,
nrIatton. ard tho Courts cotid not compel It
| 10 do 50. The remedy which Is protccted by
tic contract clnusc Of the Constitution Is
something more thar the privilege nf having
power to enforce the results OF such ndjIdl:
cation. Only such remedies as nre required
tn enforce contract are protected by .uio'
Federal consltution. n rigt 10 ,sas st,e
practically OF no yalue to them as q inealts OF
enforcing their contrslcts. Il Fayc them M no
rtAl relAoly, n1Mi consequently tle WIN.
Enttons Of their contracts within the meaning
81 tic proliibitory laws IT tho Federal Cola-
stltuil0n. Tie decree of tlla lower M Court -
therefore, affirmed, with Gusts. the C!ilei.
dissenting. :,
| No. 155. Joseph II. Douglass. plaintiff IN
error, ys. Pike County, Missouri. IN efror M
So fS pIses G5est & ffaEs ssoar h0 eS ss s
brought bro upon the coupons OF certain bonds.
ISSUED BY riko County, Missouri, IL behalf
| OF CuT1Er township, nnuer !ne 19"!1ssip
I Aid act of Alnrcl r. 1858. THAT act was
| held by this Court, In the case OF Cass County
IS. johnson (G5 U. s., 500, to By constitn-
tlOnal. The Supreme Court Of Missouri llas
since, however, DECLARED 1t uncon6titll-
J ttonni, and this Court IL now asked by do.
! feudatlts lit error to reconsider It's decision
in the Cass County case ntld follow the
tategt rulings of the Stnta Supreme Court.
!. . This Court. however, holds that the rights OF
tie parties In the present litigation are to be
determined BY law, rs 1t was juliclally con-
/ strllcl to be when tho bonds fnqNeston !yere
nut on tho market. AT that ttnle tho Stnte
Supreme Court held, and had repeatedly
held, TINT the Township Aid act Was constl'
tutlonal. 1t now thinks TINT that act Wae
unconstitutional. This Court Ii Of opinion
I tlat it is not bountl to adopt t!ie lntes
ruling of the Supreme Court OF Allsso1fl |
It By such adoption the rights Whict
AQye become vested unticr the eqI!y fullnf
are to be injurlously Infected. Tho 1utlK{
rcl1t of tho Lower Court t. reversed VII!
/ costs snnd the causo rcmanded with tlrectlons
3, to overruIe the demurrer and for 1uftneI p1o
, ccclluEs In conformity herewith. =. J!
| ArPEA1s D1ssttssEp.
a h Not1,135. Tho Denver Sc Rio Grande Rail
: Il way Company, appellant, vs. tho C9i1on C1t M
. |. Il San Juan Railroad Company. no, ll,l39
!: *rhe knl,e.. aPptl1Mnt, ys; the Pueblo
Il Nos. ,lb2 and 1.153, the Pueblo s. Arkansn
4 Valley KRllr0nh Company Vs. the Denver $
j, ,1ltu Grallio Railway Company. Appeals dle
: missed 7lunc prt4 tHnc as Of 25tfl Inst. pc
! al liquidation und consent of counsel Oh file.