Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1883-11-20
SUPREME COURTFINDING
A DECISION UNDER THE FLOR
IDA IMPROVEMENT ACT.

| - A~ASAO&N CNOGN THE FLOR-
IDA IMPROVEMENT ACT.
Louisville and Nashville Possessions
Not Entitled to Exemption from Tax
alton Under the Law of 1S55-Texas
Wins Monster Land Suit-New Or
leans Also Favored.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 19.-Among the de-
cisions handed down to-day by the su-
preme Court was one in case No. 765, the
Louisville and Nashville Railroad Com
! pany, plaintiff in error, VS.. Manuel Pal
mer, collector, etc., in error; to the Su-
preme Court of the State of Florida. The
question presented by this case is whether
line or railroad which was commenced,
| partly completed and operated by the
Alabama and Florida Railroad Company.
and which through successive transfers
has finally come into the hands of the
Louisville and Nashville Railroad Com
| pany, is or is not exempt from taxation
| by virtue OF an act passed by the Legisla-
| ture of Florida in 1866 and known as
| the internal improvement act. This
| court holds that the exemption from taxa
| tion created by the 18th section of the In
| ternal improvement act of 1855 is in every
| respect similar to that which was de-
CAdAS ny luIS court Ill the case oil NOR
| gan VS.. Louisiana, SO United States, 217,
to be non-assignable. Such exemption,
therefore, did not pass from the Alabama
and Florida Railroad Company to the
Pensacola and Louisville Railroad Com
pany, when the former conveyed to the lat
ter its roads and franchises connected
with and necessary in its construction
and operation. Even, however, if such
exemption had passed to the
Pensacola and Louisville Railroad
Company, that corporation would have
had no power to further convey it, so that
the line OF the railroad in its present
hands is properly liable to State taxation.
ana It's present owners cannot claim inn
munlty on the ground that the act of 1915,
taxing the property of all corporations,
was an impairment of the obligation of
the contract of 1865. The decree of the
supreme Court of Florida is affirmed with
costs. The opinion is by Justice Mat
thews. Five other railroad corporations
in Florida claim immunity from taxation
upon practically the same ground which
was assumed in this case.
TEXAS WINS A BIG LAND SsUIT.
Another decision handed down to-day
was in case No. 532, William C.. Walsh.
Commissioner of the General Land Office
of the State of Texas, appellant, VS.. Will
liam Preston, on al appeal from the Cir
cult Court of the United States for the
Western District of Texas. This was a
suit brought by William Preston, as chief
agent of Texas association, against the
State Commissioner of the General Land
once, to enforce the terms of an alleged
contract between the Republic of
Texas and Charles F. Mercer, executed
on the 18th of January, 1914. By the
terms of this contract Mercer was to
establish colony within the limits of the
Texan Republic, upon lands to be furnish
ed by the latter, and was to introduce
and settle in such colony, during a period
OF five years, as many immigrant fami-
lies as possible-nOt les than 100 year,
In payment for this service Mercer and
his associates were to receive $40 acres Os
land for each family introduced and
settled, and an additional premium of 10
sections of $40 acres each for every 100
families so introduced. The appellant
alleges that during the stipulated
period OF hve years Mercer introduced
and settled in his colony 1.256
families, and thereby became entitled to
1876 sections of land of $40 acres each.
and the appellant as chief agent of the
Texan association, which succeeded to
the Mercer right now seeks to enforce
the provisions of the contract by cOmpelI-
ing the Land Commissioner to issue GER
tlncateS and patents for the amount of
land i'll controversy, either within the
limits of the sO-called Mercer colony or
elsewhere in the State After long and
exhaustive review of the contract, the
history of the settlement of Texas and va
riOus stages of this litigation, Justice
Miller, expressing the opinion of the court,
says: 1--WE feel constrained to say that
there is no satisfactory evidence to our
minds that Mercer or any of his associates
or any agent of his ever introduced into
the state OF Texas single family from
without the State, or that any such fam-
ly ever came into the State bv means of
any request or any offer of help or of land.
or of any inducement offered by Mercer or
his associate. The plaintiff and his Dre-
decessOrS in interest have not only
not performed their part of the contract.
but they have not shown sufficient eX-
cuse for the enon-perfOrmance. They have
not, in the language of the authority.
shown themselves ready, willing and able
to perform. On the contrary, they have
permitted the matter to rest for 30 years.
without an effort to do so. and
now, if they would, the state of matters
in the colony limits is so changed that it
is impossible that they can perform their
agreement. The total failure of Mercer
to perform left him no rights under the
contract. The State seeks nothing against
him for non performance and so the affair
is ended. The decree of the Circuit Court
is reversed and the cause remanded with
directions to dismiss the bill. Justice
Harlan dissented.
NEW ORLEANS ALSO FAVORED.
A decision was also rendered in case
No. "a, the State of Louisiana ex rel.
Folsom Bros, plaintiffs. in error.
vs.the Mayor, ETC., of the city of
New Orleans in error, to the Supreme
Court of the State of louisiana This
was suit brought by the Folsom Broth
ers, the REALTORS, to compel the authori-
ties OF New Orleans to provide for the
payment of two judgments recovered
by the former against the city as in
demnlfication for damage done their prop
erty by mob in 1873. The municipal
authorities set up the defense that by the
constitution of the State adopted in 1879
their power to impose taxes on property
within the city limits was restricted to
ten mills on the dollar of its valuation:
that the money raised by this tax was
only adequate to pay the current
expenses of the city, which must
first be met, and that therefore
they were unable to provide for the pay
nent of the relatOrs' Judgment. In reply
to this the relatOrs maintained that the
Limitation OF power of taxation was made
after the recovery Of the judgment, and
that 1T was unconstitutional, inasmuch
as, first, it impaired the obligation of a
contract; and, second, it took private
properly WITHOUT uue process OF law.
This court holds, first, that the right to
reimbursement for damages caused by
mob is not right founded upon any con-
tract between the city and the sufferers,
and that, therefore, there was nothing in |
the obligations of the city for which
the relators recovered their judg-
ments that precluded the State from
changing the taxing power of the city.
even though the taxation as thus changed
was so small as to postpone the payment
of the judgments. Second. That the
clause OF the fOurteeth amendment cited
is equally imperative to restrain the ac-
tion of the State. Conceding that iudg-
ments are property in the sense
that they are capable of ownership
and may have pecuniary value, the re-
lators cannot be said to be deprived of
them so long as they continue an existing
liability against the city. A person can
not be said to be deprived of his property
in Judgment because at the time he Is un-
able to collect it. The judgment of the
Supreme Court of Louisiana is affirmed
with costs. The opinion is by Justice
Field, Justice Harlan dissenting.