The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-04-04
PRICE TWO CENTS
In TENNESSEE'S FAVOR.
THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES THE
SUIT AGAINST VIRGIyIA
In Which . Largo Strip OF Land was
Involved-The Present Boundary Line 4
to Remain, Says tho Court.

WASHINGTON. ID. c., April a.
In 1883 Attorney-General Ayers. OF vir-
ginia. filed a bill with the Supreme Court
of the United States. in which he alleged
that Tennessee was exercising Jurisdiction
unlawfully over a strip OF territory from
two to eight miles wide. from the North
Carolina line due west course, I'm latitude
S6 degrees, 80 minutes, north to the Ken
lucky line.
In the territory described Mr.. Ayers
claimed that serious conflicts OF jurisdic-
tion had arisen. and especially with mat
ters connected with the towns Of Bristol,
Tenn, and GoOdson, Va, and he asked
that the agreement between the States OF
Virginia and Tennessee under which the
boundary line had been established In
1903 be declared null and void, and that
Virginia be quieted In the possession OF
the disputed territory lying north Of q
parallel of 80 degrees. 30 minutes.
In an elaborate opinion by Justice
Field the Supreme Court to-day declined
10 grant the prayer OF Virginia. The
opinion went into the historical exhaus-
lively and discussed the law involved.
Briefly, the court held that, inasmuch
as the two States had, I'm lS03, adopted
the report OF the boundary commission;
that that compact had been implied and
ratified by the Congress OF the United
States, and that for a period OF more
than eighty-five years the line laid down
by the boundary commission had been
recognized as the true boundary, IL would
refuse the petition OF Virginia to now
establish a new one.
Any mark on the old line that may
have become fndistinct or been destroyed,
Justice Field said. could by proper pro-
ceeding at this term OF the court be Or
dered restored.
Other supreme Court Decisions.
That purchasers OF bends sold TO aid
in the construction OF public improve
ments cannot be too particular before
purchasing 20 investigate the conditions
or the authority by which they were
issued was emphasized by decision In
the Supreme Court OF the United States
to-day, the opinion being read by Jus
tice Shiras. Frank ID. Barnum. OF Ten
nessee, sued the town Of Okolona, Miss,
TO recover the value OF certain bonds or
that municipality. sold for the benefit OF
the Grenada, Houston and Eastern Rail-
road Company They were dated Septem-
Der /. 1871, and were TO mature I'm from
eleven 10 seventeen years after date.
There was default OF payment and suit
instituted. Defense was set up that by
the terms OF the act authorizing the mu-
nicipality 10 issue bonds the term OF their
existence was limited 10 ten years; the
bonds In question, running from eleven
to seventeen years were therefore void.
The United states Court for the North
ern District OF Mississippi. where the pro-
ceedings were had. adopted the decl3ra-
tiOn OF the Mississippi Supreme Court,
and gave judgment for the defendant.
Justice Shiras said that construction or
law was sound. that Il had been also
adopted by the Supreme Court or the
United States, and that the judgment OF
the court below must he affirmed.
Chieot county. Ark, was not so success
full in a bonded suit instituted by Sher-
wood Il Dutton, OF New York. They
brought suit in the United States Court
for the Eastern District Of Arkansas on
certain railroad bonds issued by Chicot
county. on which default or payment had
been made. The county pleaded want OF
Jurisdiction on the ground that the law
passed i'm 1879 had repealed all laws au-
thOrizng counties in the State 10 sue ana
be sued; the loca. courts having no juris-
dlction, therefore the United States had
none.
The district court overruied this plea
and gave judgment FOR the plaintiffs.
Justice Jackson. IN the opinion OF the
court. said that the jurisdiction OF the
United states courts could not thus be
limited or restricted, and affirmed the
Judgment OF the district court.
The petition Tor a rehearing OF the cele-
brated Chicago Lake Front cases wes
overTuled by the Supreme Court OF the
United states. but second petition viii
be filed II opportunity offers. This much
was stated in open court to-day by ex-
Attorney General Bristow in answer TO
rather sharp questioning by Justice
oil