New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-12-08
'sTpREME COURT DECISIONS
SEVERAL IMPORTANT CASES SETTLED.
rrsro,,s INTERPRETATIONS OF CORPORATIONS
LILLIAN CAR COMPANY SUIT.

rrsTous DUTIEs-PRIvILEGEs OF CORPoRATIoNs-
PULLMAN CAR COMPANY SUIT.
WASHINGTON, Dec. THE Supreme Court
nj the United States to-day rendered among others tho
following decisions;
No ss7-Bernhard Arnson and Ellis Winsiensky.
sntGs I'm error against Thomas Murphy late Collector
~ the Port Of NowYor In error to the Circuit Court
80 southern District OF New.YOrk. This suit was
brought in May 1879 in the State Court of New-York
and was removed thence to the Circuit Court OF the
limited States to recover paid TO the defendant
"a Collector Of the Port OF New York. between 1911 and
1873 as duties several expectations OF ne-benzole
The defendant up IN his answer that the moneys re-
aive were Tor lawful duties and also pleaded tho SIX
,ear limitation OF the NewYork statute. Tho suit was
ed resulting in a verdict defendant by direction of
,be Court, followed by . Judgment TO review which
the Plaintiffs sued out writ or error whIch
came before this at the October term. 1883 IL
stated Ia the decision thereon that thore had been
dine protests and appeals the Secretary Of the Treas
ury but that no decision had been rendered by him
thereon prior to beginning OF this action and that 1t
WAS not brought until after ninety days had elapsed
from tie date Of the latest appeal and not unt aIter
tie lapse Of than from the expiration OF
that period The court held that the statute makes the
decision Of the Collector final and conclusive as TO the
rate and amount OF duties unless there Ia specific pro-
test made to Collector within ten days after the
Nqadaton and au appeal taken to the Secretary OF the
Treasury within thirty days after the liquidation.
The decision Of the Secretary on the appeal Is made
fnal and conclusive unless suit Is brought wl'mh
ninety days such decision in the case OF duties
paid before the decision within ninety days after the
payment duties paid after the decision. and no suit
can brought before decision the appeal unless the
decision delayed the time specified In the statute
and that it is incumbent uron the importer TO SHOW IN
order to recover, that ho has fully complied with the
statutory conditions which attach TO the statutory action
proyied for He must show not only due protest and
,ta1an daci IN he al am
fms of within the time granted by the statute after
The decision else that there has been decision and
the prescribed time after tho appeal has elapsed The
opinion the Court is that the Circuit Court properly
held that It encumbent on the plaintiffs, as
precsdeut to their recovery to show not
only due protests and appeals. but that action was
brought within the time required by the statute. THIS
they failed 20 show aud 1t proper to direct
dci for defendant The court also hold that there
nothing IN the statute which required that the de-
cison on appeal shall be communicated to the claimant
by any action Of the officers OF the Government Juds
mcnt affirmed. Opinion by Mr. Justice Batchforl.
No 4S9-Thc Louisville Gas Company plaintiffs in
error agt. The Citizens Gas Light Company. In error
TO Court OF Appeals of the State Of Kentucky. The
appellant contested that It's charter granting certain
exclusive rights and privileges constituted within IN e
meaning OF tho National Constitution a contract, the
Obligation OF which has been impaired by the charter
subsequently granted to the appellee. The below
maintained as constitutional the legislation under tho
authority OF which the Citizens Gas Light Company is
exercising the rights, privileges aud franchises con-
fered by It's charter. by act OF the General Assem-
bly, of Kentucky. approved Nay Is. 1898 the Louisville
Gas Company created corporation to continue for
term OF twenty ears. aDda charter was granted
TO the company 10 take effect January l. 1859
and continue IN force FOR twenty years The provision
Of the act granting charter the company
the exclusive privilege OF erecting and establishing gas
works in the city OF Louisville during the con-inullce
1.
teration amendment to the charter could be made
without the OF the CITY Council and The
directors OF the gas company.
BY an act approved NJ rich 21.1s72, the Citizens ;
Gaslght Company OF Louisville was Incorporated TOR
the term Of fifty years with authority make, sell and
distribute gas The Louisville Gas Company claimed
exclusive right of erecting ana establishing gas WORKS.
etc. in the City Of Louisville until ,h5 expiration OF
their charter in 1880 aud the present
IN tie Louisville Cnancery Court b. the company
for purpose OF Obtaining a perpetual injunction
against the assertion of any such exclusive privilege
The Court OF Original Presentation maintained the claim
Of the Louisville Gas Company and dismissed the suit
Upon appeal 10 the Court OF Appeals OF Kentucky. tho
decree reversed With direction 10 issue perpetual
exercising the exclusive right 10 manufacturing
ami supplying TO the city Of Louisville. Two Of IN
four Judges OF the State Court heid that the o OF rights
Kentucky forbade the General Assembly OF that STATE
legcs The other judges were OF opinion that that qua
prohibit contract between the state and private
upon the latter consideration OF It's dischargng
public duty. OF rendering public service mat the
government. there public necessity for lights
upon its streets, etc. ana that the service 70 be PEI
formed by corporation adequate cOn,itcra-
tion for the grant 10 II Of exclusive privileges and at
consequently the grant contract the rights OF the
parties under It BE- determined by the rules that
are applicable to contracts ~ tween individuals.
held that such services as we performed by the com
pany were OF pubic nature. and that the grant Of
exclusive privileges 10 tho defendant IN confederation
thereof not IN violation OF the Constitution Of the
In behalf OF tie Citizens Gas Light Company It was
also coutended that the charter Of the Louisville Gas
the act Of January o. 1859 was ali times subject to
amendment repeal az tHe pleasure ~ the Legislature
The held that the o 1869 plainly EXPIRE SGD the
privileges and franchises conferred oy the act Of 1867
as modined aud extended by that OF 1869, without IT'S
charter being subect to amendments or repeal At the
viii OF the legislature" The remaining questions AT
the New Orleans Gas Light Company tg the Louisiana
Light and Heat Producing Company decided to-day.
Decision OF lower court reversed.
NO. lS-Tbe New-Orleans Gas Light Company, appel
liant, the Louisiana Light and Heat Producing and
Manufacturing Company ct al Appeal from the Circuit
Court OF the United states for the Eastern District OF
Louisiana. The plaintiff. the NewOrleans Gas Light
Company claimed that by grant Of the Legislature II i
entitled for rfty years, from April 1873 10 the sole
am exclusive privilege OF manufacturing ara di'rbut
ing IN that city, md asked dat the Defendant be
perpetuay enjoned from supplying or attempting to
supply gas 20 the people OF Ne~Oreans until after the
The New. orleans Gas Light Company was formed by
tie consolidation In March IsIo' OF company under
that title with the Crescent CITY Gas Light Company.
The former or tue Legislature, ha1 Tue eHc4hrNe
right vend until April l. 1873, ana the latter from
that cate. Several years after the consolidation. the
Louisiana Legs. passed set prohibiting the
granting OF monopoly or exclusive rights, aud In conse
quence OF this the Louisiana Lgnt ana Heat Producing
Company WAS organized. 1t claimed the night 10 veud
gas nrst because under its charter the Crescent CITY
Company did come into existence unt April 1870,
which date tie New Orleans Gas Company expired by
the creating the Crescent CITY Company ami, there
FORE had night TO CONSOLIDATED and secondly that its
exclusive nights were abrogattd b. the uonopOy clause
IN the state Constitution
became existing corporation with power To lay pipes
and prep fudl It's contract II nad the right 10 do
everything except sell gas within the territory
which the New Orleans Gas Company had exclusive
cpn,ro aud could. with the OF latter veDd
gas hin its territory It's therefore held that had the
right 10 Oidate under the authorizing COnpa
with similar objects 20 combine and enjoy all the
privileges OF each. The Court then proceeds the
second point, which Is that under article