The Greenville times. [volume] (Greenville, Miss.) 1868-1917, 1890-09-06

emption would not be claimed. By
the act of the Legislature authorizing
the sale of said lands at two cents per
acre, it was upon condition that twen-
ty-tive miles of sand railroad had been
completed by the railroad company in
this State. This failure renders the
validity Of such sale doubtful, but in
addition to what has been stated on
this question, the proof shows the
Selma, Marion and Memphis Railroad
Company, had, sometime prior to Jan
uary 1881, ceased to construct said
railroad and was hopelessly insolvent,
and that on the-day of--all its
property, franchise and everything
possessed by it, except these lands,
were sold under the decree of the
Circuit Court ofthe United States tor
the Western District of Tennessee
which remains unreversed and under
the decree of said court were turned
over to the purchasers and the rail-
road company foreclosed of all its
right, title and interest therein. So
that, practically, the corporation oeas-
ed to exist after that time. The build
ing, equipping and operas zion of this
road for the public convenience was
the consideration for the exemption
provided in the charter, and the failure
Of the corporation, to effect the pur-
pose of its creation, the consideration
for any exemption provided has failed.
1t Is difficult to maintain the exemp-
tion after that time. This is all that is
deemed necessary TO say ON the ques-
tion of the exemption of the lands
ffom taxation. The lands sold at two
cents per acre were not intended to
embrace lands claimed by tho levee
commissioners, and it may be well
doubted whether the Selma, Marion
and Memphis Railroad Company OBJ
tanned any title under this purchase.
The next question for consideration
is as to the legal effect of the sale of
these lands under the the decree of the
circuit court of the United States, for
the West District of Tennessee, and the
foreclosure of the right, title, and in
terest of the Selma, Marion and Men,
phis Railroad Company in them.
The only question is as to the juris-
diction of the Court to make the
decree for the sale, for the reason that
the lands are situated within this State
and not In the District of West Ten
nessee, or within that State. The
court had Jurisdiction Of the parties,
and of the debts secured by the mort
gage or trust deed.
II tho court had jurisdiction then
the sale, its confirmation and the pay
ment OF the purchase money, vested a
complete, equitable title to tho lands
in the purchaser, and tho court, II the
legal title has not been vested in the
purchasers, has the power to cause II
to be done. The validity of the sale Of
the other property is not questioned.
It is clear that q judgment had In a
court of law in ono State, cannot in
any way, effect the title to land In
another State. Reference is made to
the case Of Muller VS.. Dows, "a U. S.
page 444 to sustain this sale. That
case is authority In point as to the
property first sold in the Blackburn
case, as that property was entirety |;
but | am Of opinion II Is not directly
so with reference to the lands en-
braced in this suit; II is stated, how
ever, IN the Muller-Dows case as fol-
lows: at is hero undoubtedly a
recognized doctrine, that Court OF
| Equity sitting In State and having
Jurisdiction of the person, may decree
a conveyance by him of land in an
other State, and may enforce decree
| by process against the defendant
Tho same doctrine Is held by the
Supreme Court of this State in the
case Of Richardson VS.. McLcmore &C
Miss, 3l5. II court of equity has
the power to compel conveyance oi
| land outside of the State in which the
court is held II is Illogical to say that
when q bill is filed to foreclose mort
gage by a railroad company covering
: property In several States, and all tht
. parties are before the court. til,
mortgagcr aud the trustees In Tho
mortgage and the bondholders, the
court has not tho power TO decree I
sale of the lands, aud order the SAINT
to be made by Its own commissioner
: or by the trustee or trustees, and thu
conveyance to be made by the mort
gagcor or by all of them. But a
. there are some doubts on this poin
and there are Others upon which th'
rights ofthe parties may bc determined
with less difficulty, IL will be passes
i, without decision the ono way or th'
other.
The next question to be considered
is as to the effect Of the judgment, sail
aud conveyance under which com
: plainants assert title to the lands II
controversy. 1t Is insisted upon thu
: part of the defendants, that the judg
ment was void for two reasons; first
! because the return of the marshal doe
not show that r. A. Murdoch upol
whom the process was served was il
any way connected with the Selma
Marion and Memphis Railroad Com
, pany, and secondly, because that cor
: poration had, for years before tina
time, ceased to have an existence fol
any purpose whatever. As to the frs
of these objections the judgment entry
/: recitcs that the court was satisfied the
process had been properly executed
which must be understood TO meal
, that 1t was executed upon the propei
!, person, and this would not have beet
] the case, If Murdoch was not, at th'
: time, connected with the corporation
/ in such way as that service upon hin
D would bind the corporation. | do no
!, believe this objection alone is main
: tainablc, If the corporation then hat
3 au existence. The more difficult ques
0 ton is had the corporation itself ceaseC
: to exist before that time. If II had M
2 valid judgment could be rendered
: against II.
( At common law, a corporation
. created without limit to its existence
0 was presumed to exist until its dealt
0 was wrought by voluntary surrende
: OF its charter or by the judgment of
0 court having Jurisdiction upon wri
@ Of quo warranto or otherwise. Ii
q caeo n corpnration caaaad tn carrv on