National Republican., 1883-11-20
THE SUPREME COURT.
Cases That Wero Acted On by This Tribunal
Yesterday.
Important Decision Affecting the Rights
of Railway Companies.

T. S. Bailey, Of Clinton, Iowa, ana FRANK D.
Loesch, of Chicago, ILL.,.
No. $50. g. ID. Rosset Lamar, executor, &c.,
appellant, VS. Chas. f. Mccoy. Appeal from
the circuit court of the United States for the |
southern district of New York. Decree re-
versed with costs, and cause remanded with |
directions to dismiss tho bill of complaint
with costs. Opinion by Justice Blatchford.
No. AZ. Richard Arnson ct al, plaintiffs In
error, VS. Thos. Murphy collector &c. In
error to tho circuit court OF the United states
for the southern district Of New YORK.
Judgment reversed with costs, and cause re-
manded with directions TO award new trial.
Opinion by Justice Matthews. w..
No. 1856. Tho Louisville and Nashville rail-
road company, plaintiff in error, VS.. Manuel
Palmer collector, sc. In error to tho supreme
court of the state Of Florida, The question
presented by this case is whether the line OF
railway which was commenced, partly com
plctcd and operated by the Alabama ana
Florida railroad company, aud which, through
successive transfers has finally come into the
hands of the Louisville and Nashville railroad
company, Is or is not exempt from taxation
by virtue Of an act passed by tho Legislature
Of Florida In 1865, and known as "The lnter-
nal Improvement Act"
This court holds that the exemption from
the internal improvement act of 1855, Is, in
every respect, similar to that which was de-
cnred by this court in the case OF Morgan VS..
Louisiana (93 u. s., 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 latter
its road, and the franchges connected with
aud necessary in its construction and opera
tiou.
Even, however, If such exemption had
Passed TO the Pensacola and Louisville Rail
road company, that corporation would have had
no power to further convey IL, so that the line of
railway In Its present hands Is properly liable
60 state taxation, and its present owners can
not claim immunity on the ground that the
act Of 1876, taxing the property of all cor
porations was an impairment of the obliga-
tion of the contract of 1865. The decree Of
tho supreme court of Florida is affirmed with
costs. Opinion by Justice Matthews. Five
other railway corporations in Florida claim
immunity from taxation upon practically tho
same ground which was assumed in this case.
No. 81. Tho United States TO use of Ma
thaniel Wilson, administrator, &C., plaintiff
In error vs. David Walker. In error to the
supreme court of District of Columbia. Judg-
ment affirmed with costs. Opinion by Justice
Woods.
No l02. Patrick q. Meath plaintiff, in
error VS.. the board of Mississippi Levee COM
missoners In error 10 the circuit court of
the United States for the southern district of
Mississippi. Judgment affirmed with costs.
Opinion by Justice Woods
No. 81. The Monongahela National Bank
Of Brownsville. Pa, plaintiff in error, VS..
Samuel III. Jacobus. In error to the circuit
court OF the United States for the western dis
trict Of Pennsylvania. Judgment affirmed
with costs. Opinion by Justice Harlan.
No. 60 William X. Grace, ct al, plaintiffs
| In error, VS.. The American Central Life In
surance company of st. Louis. In error to
| the circuit court of tho United States for the
eastern district of Now York. Judgment re-
yorsed with costs, and cause remandod, with
| directions to set aside the judgment and for
| further proceedings not inconsistent with
the opinion Of this court. Opinion by Justice
Harlan. Fraa atAf u
No. "a. Tho state Of Louisiana OK rel Fol-
som Bros, plaintiffs in error, VS.. The mayor,
&C., of tho city Of Now Orleans. In error to
| the supreme court Of the state Of Louisiana.
| This was q suit brought by Folsom Bros, the
| relators, 10 compel the authorities of New
Orleans TO provide for the payment Of two
judgments recovered by the former against
| tho city rs naturalization for damage done
to their property by mob In 1873.
The municipal authorities set up tho do
fonse that by the constitution of the state
adopted In 1879 their power TO impose taxes
on property within the city limits was re-
stricted 10 ten mills on the dollar Of its val
uation; that the money raised by this tax
was only adequate TO pay the current OK
penses Of the city, which must first be met
and that, therefore, they were unable to pro
vide for tho payment of the relators' judg
ments.
In reply TO this the relators maintain that
the Limitation Of tho power Of taxation wa!
made after tho recovery of the Judgments
| and that IL was unconstitutional, inasmuCh ai
.allt ira
and, I'd, IL took private property without due
process Of law.
This court holds, first, that the right q
reimbursement for damages caused by u mol
Is not u right founded upon any contract
, between the city and the sufferers, aud thai
therefore there was nothing in the obliga
tions Of tho city for which tho rolators recov
cred their judgments that precuded the state
, from changing the taxing power of the city
even though the taxation as thus changed wa
, so small as 10 postpone the payment Of the judg
ments Second that the clause oftho fourteenth
amendment cited is equally imperative to re
strain tho action Of the state. Conoeding tha
the judgments are property in the sense tha
they are capable Of ownership and may hav
pecuniary value, the REALTORS cannot bo sal,
! TO be deprived Of them so long rs they con
: tinue an existing liability against tho city.
person cannot be said 10 be deprived OF hi
property In Judgment because at tho tim
| ho Is unable 10 collect II. Tho Judgment Q
@ the supreme court of Louisiana Is ailirme
with costs. Opinion by Justice Field, Justic
Harlan dissenting.
No. 552. William G. Walsh. commissions
Of the general land oilioe OF tho state {
Texas, appellant, Va. William Preston. Al
peal from the circuit court Of tho Unite
70 States for tho western district of Texa
This was a suit brought by William Preston
Il rs chief agent Of the Texas association
against the state commissioner Of the generi
!, land office, 90 enforce tho this terms of a
alleged contract between tho republic Of TeKG
J. and one Charles 4. Mercer, executed on th
2 twonty.ninth Of January, lsli. BY th
terms Of this contract Mercer was 10 establis
a colony within the limits Of the Texan r,
v public upon lands 20 be furnished by III
II latter, aud was 20 introduce and settle
such colony during q period OF i've yoai
!, rs many immigrant families "a possible-nt
Il less than one hundred u year
Il payment for this service, Mercer and his assC
oiates were to receive go acres Of land Il
4 each family introduced, and settled an add
d tional premium Of ten sections OF 0lO acr,
y each for every 100 families 20 Introduce,
- The appellant alleges that during tho stipt
lated period Of five years, Mercer Introduce
N and settled In his colony 1850 families, an
I, thereby became ontitlOd 10 l,37B sections
O. land Of $40 acres each aud appellant,
chief agent Of tho Texan association, whic
n succeeded 10 Moroor's rights now seeks
" enforce the provision of the contract, by con
! pelling tho land commissioner 10 issue ce
D. theates and patents for the amount Of Ian
i'm controversy, either within the limits
4.