The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-04-23
MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT.
A Decision in the Levee Bond Case
Rendered-Other Decisions.

A Decision In the Levee Bond Case
Rendered-other Decisions.
Special Dispatch TO Tho Appeal
JACKSON, Miss, April 22.-The follow
ing cases were today decided by the ST.
preme Court:
BY Cooper. j.;
Julia Madden vs. Louisville, New Or
leans & Texas Railway Company, from
Warren Circuit Court; reversed and judg-
ment here.
J. /. Mulholland ct al. vs.. Electric
Light Company. from Warren Circuit
Court; affirmed. This decision de-
clares that the electric light plant is
material furnished" upon which a lien
may lie enforced under the Code.
Nick Jones vs.. the State, convicted In
Noxubce Circuit Court OF assault and bat.
terry; reversed.
First National Bank OF Meridian vs. A.
Straus, from Lauderdale Circuit Court;
affirmed.
by Arnold. G. j.:
Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Rail-
way Company vs.. b. T.. Bigger, from
Washington Circuit Court; reversed and
rcmanded.
Cooper Shelter vs. the State, from War
rem Circuit Court; affirmed.
Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Rail-
way Company vs.. Il. +. Gray, from shar-
key Circuit Coun; reversed and re-
handed.
BY Campbell, r.:
John A Ray vs.. Mariah Devereaux, from
Rankin Circuit Court; reversed and re-
handed.
X. @. Terry and wife vs. Curd sinton
Manufacturing Company, from West Dis.
trict Hinds Circuit Court; affirmed as TO
Terry and reversed Ms TO his wife.
Amos Woodruff ct al. W. the State OF
Mississippi etal., from First District Kinds
Chancery Court; affirmed.
This was a suit by bill In chancery filed
| by tho plaintiffs, holders OF 100000 Of
what Is known rs drst levee bonds, 20 en-
force collections OF same against an np-
proximate estimate Of 100000 acres OF
valuable lands situated In the counties of
Bolivar, Washington, Issaquena, Sharkey,
Coahomn, Sun1ower, IeFlore, Tall
lahatchic aud Tunica. The act Of
March ~, 1871, authorized the
lovcc commisslonersto to. borrow money and
issue bonds" 10 the extent OF $1,000. 600.
Bonds were issued, payable In gold coin.
The court says When said act was passed
aud when tho bonds embraced In this suit
were issued, gold coin was not the basis
Of the business Of the country. II was
money, but Mt much greater value than
the circulating medium consisting OF
United States Treasury note and National
bank notes. OF which We take judicial mo-
tice, because Il Is part Of the public history
known 10 all the world, aud therefore in
Guiding Us. All debts payable In "dollars"
generally were ~ now payable in legal
tenders, but an obligation payable in gold
coin can be discharged only according TO
~ terms. "ln authorizing the issuance
Of bonds for 100000 aud In the
Use Of the term money tho Legislature
must be supposed to have meant in the act
cited that money which constituted the
basis Of the general business OF the coun-
ny and was q legal tender for the pay
mcnt Of dcbtA" Therefore, there was
no authority In the act for the issuance OF
bonds payable in gold and they we're
void, for want OF authority, for their issu-
ancc. This IA matter Of substance, inyoly-
ing departure In most maieria. feature
from the act authorizing bonds TO bo Is
sued aud rendered them void from the
beginning" Tho case will be- appealed 10
the supreme Court Of the United States.
Iovcc Commissioners W. William Hem
mington, First District OF Kinds Circuit
Court; reversed and rcmanded.