The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-12-02
BROWNSVILLE CASES
HEARD IN The UNITED STATES
COURT YESTERDAY.
One Of Judge Bakers Legaeies-An
Insurance Case Decided Against
the Planters' Co.

In the United States Supreme
Ccuit yesterday cases Of deep con-
Germ 10 our neighboring town of
Brownsville were called up and ar.
gued. The fret was the case of Nor
ton against the Taxing District OF
Brownsville, which presents features
not only OF interest to the lawy er but
60 the general reader. 1t appears
that prior to the adoption of the con-
eiituion Of 1872 the city of
Bro Wnsville had ordered an cleo
ton to decide whether its
citizens favored the voting of bonds
to a projected railroad. The cons i.
tuition of 1872 went into effect the day
before the election. The next day
the people voted on the proposition,
and it was carried in favor OF itsuing
the bonds. Afterwards the bonds
were Issued and delivered and default
made in the payment OF interest and
principal. Suit was brought, and the
TAXING DISTRICT OF BROWNSVILLE
raised the defense that the bonds
were uni ,wfully Issued and void,
b caus4 SUE as urance was in con.
hct with the constitution in 1872,
which was operative at that time.
TIE case was heard by the late
Judge Baxter, who gave judgmentf for
the plaintiff, but on motion for new
trial reversed the decision and took
the papers into his possession for the
purpose OF preparing decision. Be. |
fore the opinion was written
JUDGE BAXTER DIED,
and action on the case SUSPENDED |
until yesterday. judges Jackson and
Hammond agreed not to disturb
Judge B ixter's decision, hence there
was pro lorna jury and verdict for
defendant, plaintiffs taking a writ of
error to the Supreme Court of the
United States. Two other
CASES OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE
against the same district were also
heard, involving nice questions of
law. They are League, administrator,
against the Taxing District of Browns.
vile, and Deveresux, against the same
corporation. Thei points in these
cases are: Does judgment against the
city OF Brownsville have to be re.
vived against the Taxing District Of
before mandamus can
issue? II it does, then before the
judgment could be revived the statute
Of limitations might run in and defeat
the claim. The other question is still
more delicate. During two years
Brownsville had no government and
nobody to serve process on. The
question is, are these two years to be
deducted in computing the time when
he statute OF limitations will take
effect. Judge Jackson took the papers
With him and will prepare an opinion,
which will be returned here at an
,arly day. It will doubtless be await.
ID with interest, not only by lawyers.
,ut laymeD, especially residents OF
The case against
HE PLANTKRs' INSURANCE COMPANY.
II Memphie, was also interesting, and
involves loss to the company, due to
negligent misstatem ant Of an agent.
t appears that in March, 1884, the
ompanv received a letter from ] ordan,
,ovett q Co., Boston iuk urauce brok.
re, that read as follows: Gentlemen
We would like your policy for any
art of $2500 at 3 per cent. on the
.arkin House, at Palatks, Fla. 1t
lands detached 100 feet from anything
kept a Congregational Church,
'elieving it good risk, the policy
'as signed. Half the town was sub.
destroyed by fire, including
ne hotel. 1t then became known to
ne company that some months
riOr to the issuance Of the policy
'irg had been added to the hotel,
hich shortened the distance between
and other buildings. The company,
'garding this ss artful deception,
sfuseo 10 pay the policy. The proof
moved that the broker who secured
le policy was ignorant of the change
the buildings, and that such
aange did not materially add to the
SIX. The Court, Judge jackson, in.
ructed the jury that they must find
n the plaintiff unless the brokers'
atement as to distance from other
lildings was willful misrepresents. |
on OF facts. The jury accordingly
I've judgment for plaintiff in the sum /
$500 and costs. |