New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-04-24
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
APPEALS IN RAILROAD CASES SETTLED.
HOW FAR A STATE MAY TAX THE ROLLING STOCK
OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION.

OF FOREIGN CORPORATION.
Washington, April 2s.--The Supreme Court OF the
United States rendered opinion to-day in case No 213
the Missouri Railway Company plaintiff in error against
Patrick Mackey In 70 tho Supreme Court OF the
State OF Kansas. The defendant In this case
pioyed by the railroad company and was Injured BY the
negligence OF one OF the companys engneeTs lie brought
suit and recovered damages In the trial the Judge
charged the jury the eject that while AZ the
law could not be held liable for injury
tanned by through the negig OF fellow
etvant yet this rule had been abrogated
railroads concerned by statute OF the State Of
Kansas enacted 1874 declaring that railroads should
be liable for damages done to employee by the
lessncss OF feIVw.emp!oye. The judgment OF the
Supreme Court Of Kansas Is affirmed.
Case No c02-The Minneapolis and st. Louis Rail-
way Company, plaintiff error against Frederick G.
Rick involving essentially the points decided in
the Kansas the judgment OF the supreme Court of
the State OF Minnesota In favor Of HerTick accord
ngy Affirmed.
decision also rendered in No. e23, Morton
Marye to Allen auditor OF the State
OF Virginia. appellant against the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Company appeal from the Circuit Court OF the
United States for the Western District Of Virginia The
Auditor of the State assessed for eleven from
1870 to 1881, amounting in tho aggregate TO 2,249
against the rolling stock etc. Of the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad. The baltimore and Ohio is a Maryland cor
poration bus controls certain Virginia roads by virtue
Of leases under which the leased roads give their track
terminal facilities, ETC., while the Baltimore and Ohio
signed especially the leased roads, but is used in
erchsngeably the whole system The railroad CON-
pany resisted payment OF the the ground tint IL
applied only domestic roads, and injunction re-
sraning Auditor sczlng It's property Issued
by the Circuit Court. This court holds that while 1t
be denied that the State has the power by apt
legislation to tax the rolling stock OF q company
organized under the State laws careful puryiew
OF the IN question shows that It was intended to apply
only to domestic roads, and not to outside roads doing
business within the State. Judgment affirmed.
The Court also rendered opinion In case No. 9Io
Horatio N. Whilbeck treasurer Of Cuyahosa County
Ohio, appellant agt the Mercantile National Bank, OF
Cleveland Ohio appeal from the Circuit Court OF the
United States for the Northern District Of Ohio
This afrms the decree Of the lower court and
holds that an increased of per cent imposed
On banks stock such discrimination a. is forbidden
by Section 5,219 Of the Revised Statutes.
The following business was also transacte.
No 2Oo-Kelly 8 Alexander plaintiff in error sgt
the Mayor etc., of the OF Milan. In error to the
fsH e. S9q Of the g%sa S
No 2o7-Essten Norton Pa1r in error Ses ne s
Circuit Court Of the United states the Western Dis
's &c. Of sssTSe United States appellant ss the
of Lou sana Appear o1 the Court Of CIalns Judgment
ssme gsRhm SSr Of h s E1sd St sa s appellants M
he United States FOR lie District Of South tia cp GD Ss
appellants and cause remanded Win direction q dis
miss the bill for want OF Jurisdiction without costs OF
qmss Fp,ner9Gk s appellant DaTt q as IN. Amos TSi,1
States the Northern District of Ohio Decree anrmed
No. sio-rhe Peoria and PeEIn Union Railway Com
pany, appellant, a. tho Chicago Pekln ana SOUTH SOUTH
hr0q os APPs d NS SR iaF
Of illinois. Decree affirmed with costs. a.. ,.,
of Co. County nsStGaahI Of BoF6a
Appeal from the Circuit Court Of The gnea III I Centrally nor
this court to be paid by the dseTes
conformity with tho directions contained in the opinion
No. iSs4-rhe United States appellant, agt Joseph
Irwin ct al Appeal from the Court SN 9r nrcceeans
10 be had therein in conformity with the opinion OF THIS
No. 1.ss5-The United States appellant agt. Charles
Perry Appeal from e Court Of Sl1 nrosee SGSs
No 2ie~Andrew Gleason appellant sgt the Distnst
Of Columbia Appeal from the Court Oh CaimS' jug
No isSeThe United States appellant qst C William n,
Claims Judgment alarmed By ed STdfa appellant a
william NO 1 q @gS6fh a"e Murdoch appellant the
q Sy HPdd the 0'u'
s,s q Tt1as & Sosn
g9sd for on S for scT that day.
No ~ Francis appellant agt bm f Gh s1
States Motion for sapp %Ts Of and BY Attorney
N fSss, Ct al eie plaintiff sen IN to aE
ar% "a S% Il a b SeW M IN Sppoon
No. i~Francis Downs executor etc. appellant appellant as5
Edward Hubbard s,n.e s. KnS ct al &PsSsd BY
Homer in Opposition hd,Iar thereto anu 0y Ds"'"
E ESr sS b support Sf plaintiff ag SsRH
Maury Tor the plaintiff, and by Benjamin BARKER l' iOr
M2nen ags ' sss1 AS Ss fa;iSs
bsen O' FOR the appellant and continued by j. Proctor
Knott for the appellee -
Adjourned until tomorrow OF II O'CLOCK '.