The comet., 1880-01-17

mon III iarSe citles, where tboIn' now cd
extended his cellar under the he lot owner
80 far encroached on il e ns slde.walt
operation another part of ,So 10 bring A
which makes regulations for t"e police pO'
the. public. In such eases ,ile saietv'
authorities would have tbs enc munlG,
scribe such u superstruct,,ro power TO n,
or other underlying encroach,'er h"'er the Ca1
be permanent and strong eno,,t enncht aswO1
the safety of the public in "ii"gn nSiwg to hI1
D. Ills not necessary to d da"lt H.
tine municipality may presa,;iue ;iue wheAI
with brick, as it does not pe onno payemr1
there were fire limits in tbe "ttpear tdr but Il,
the pavement was within tbow" U"', and M
views are given as the genon', . Iheabc1
which should regulate the 'ov,a nvn. prindI.
power, with no intent to decidarc Of01
that the town council could und. u9 absOlutG
circumstances than that momm er anyOt1
scrided the material to be nsed d''Ohed p
@. But there is an ins,,noroII;;
TO maintaining this suit. The iJ rich, o,o)eeCtOl
the side walk out of repair waS y odedj1
IN the two street cOmmiSs;o nOt Wap
question was solely for the doteIS do.1IS, lN1
Of the council. The power to or1diee'lnlHaiu ~
not be delegated by them, w W II NQI
Judgment affirmed.
7. N. MARTIN, ct al,
VS..
}. L: HARRINGTON, ct al.
Appeal from the Chanc.rv c.
Chickasaw county, Hon. L. u,n g 4
Chancellor. "s0'0n
The only question presented in AZ,
is, whether an Attorney, who has "' ra'.' oE
cd land for his client in an action q, ,s'Y'S y,
ment, is entitled to lien on it for H. 9'S
ment of his fee. ' Af
Martin Il Bates for appellants.
Reuben Davis for appelees,
GEORGE. G. j.
Held
l. The cOmplainants in the hin Al
enforce the alleged lien, who are p"r "n neg
here, rely solely upon the csso ~ sPpelalh
W.. Flowers, AZ Miss, 513. ns tbo vi aa s@SlH
for the relief which they AK II IN a,dalaOi1
the opinion of the Court, drawn =" rnI unn ~
Justice Tarbell. Is marked by great \ re.s,si %%
INTO the authorities on the subject Of S.c
OF attorneys for their cost and fees M nS
authorities are cited and colDmen,od 1
and many extracts given from opinioU, ~ !
vered by other judges, as to which tIScoasl o
express neither assent nor dissent nv
clusion reached, however, was ady0,'s
the claim for II lien set up by the ,S lWoSl
and is no adjudication in favor of "a tSs w
here claimed. "'' 'ga
2. Under the state of the law. We nh,
authorized to extend the lien of AttOr~
to land secured by their efforts ,a hNw%.
meritOriOus those efforts NAV bava I,'a E,s
Attorneys who rely upon the estato tl NJ
recovered as IA security for their fe@, w ~'
therefore take lien by contract in WD' TT
ing. WV
Decree affirmed.
JOHN g. Marry, Use etc.
GEORGE ". GArHrsGs.
Error to the Circuit Court Of Nmv
county, Hon. J. A. Green, Judge.
This case was once before in this Can.
See 50 Miss, sos.
1t is Il. suit upon written instnnu
whereby the maker acknowledged The 4
ceipt of $4,000 90 in Confederate Trpau
notes and Mississippi cotton money, inM
ment of five thousand pounds of lintcotn
which he Obligates himselfto deliver nj
parties went to trial upon a plea of thn
eral issue, and upon a special plea that
contract had been abandoned by tn. yt
tiff before suit brought.
When the case was here first the Cv
held that there had been no abandonns
of the contract, and declared that pdH
was entitled, under the proof, to wt
for the value of the cotton.
Upon the subsequent trial in the ID
below, the jury returned a verdict ilr
words: "We, the jury, find for the pnhi
Valned (valne) of Confederate and M
sippi cotton money at time paid, one i
dred dollars with six per cent interest,"
annum, amounting to $17S OO.' Andp
this verdict Judgment was entered
plaintifF for Sl7s 90,
A motion was made by plaintiff to na
this judgement and award him vh
inquiry to assess the value of the cVIa
This motion was based upon the THO
that inasmuch as the value of the ma
paid for the cotton was not in issue By
and was u matter with VIII
the jury had no concern, so much Of
finding as related to it was to be treated
surpluSsage, and the verdict regarded
general finding for plaintiff, with
qre TO assess the damages tp Eha
was entitled. This motion was, By
Court, overruled, but subsequent m&
by plaintiff, to set aside the verdiCtms
contrary to the law and evidence ws
tained and a new trial awarded.
The new trial was had and resulted
,erdict for defendant. Plaintiff mad
notion TO set aside this last verdict
Yere any exceptions taken qHqn &
rial. The case is brought here sRleF
he supposed error in the action y
Court in refusing to award the writ =
luiry upon the former verdict, to "
Iction plaintiff ut the time sealed M
Exceptions.
Murphy, Sykes & BristOw, aud "
)owd, for plaintiff in error
Gholson g. Houston, and G. J. BuclN'
or defendant in eFraF,
CHALMERS, i
Ield-
1. We think the court below wa
throughout. The verdict in quesuO.
erroneous, and based uPv.
ideratiOns which had no legltlmaI
ection with the case. 1t was propuP
side and new trial awarded.
2. The said verdict cannot Dc R
3 general finding for planlln w
Indication ON the part of the yup
mount they intended to award;
3. No part of 1t can be treated ms i:...
Y, nor the whole of it rs eol,,t'S eolsut
eneral finding for the plaintin, ~HD''
artainment Of the sum DUE, .tus
4. lmpIQpeT YoFds can 9nll "
DIN d Verdict as Il surDllsage ylsH
lat are left CONSTITUTED d perfect re'"'
u the issues submitted.
Troubles case, So Miss. vh
The issues submitted here werV
Iaintiff was entitled to recover, aHS
DIV much. If we strike out lns
us words there il no Response WI
the second question, and whlle IN
Iquiry should be awarded where mere, Ts IN
ilure to assess damages, it Is no'
BILE, where the jury have mace Is,.os M
strike il out because groshl! NlS
bgsed upon improper u
Ons, and by preserving rls balsn
,rdict produce a result that ~S
nded. ..i,,p
5. No motion for new trial ba's A. n
ade, or exceptions taken 10 la' ~
r defendant rendered ON the ia.
c Of course precluded from An'
alton Of its correctness.
affirmed.
rHE CASE OF RoLIYAR OV''