The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-05-25
PRICE CENTS fsg At srxy zs1 sgEDA EH agAsR gss4s

western Railway, in which Parsons, an
Iowa shipper, sued for $3.50 on ac-
count OF alleged determinations in freights
of corn and oats between Iowa and Ne
braska points to the Eastern seaboard. Inc
company in 1887 charged q cents per hum
dred pounds from Iowa to Chicago and IL
cents from Nebraska to Chicago on goods
bound for New York, Boston, Philadelphia
the value of corn and oats at Chicago was
the seaboard price, less the freights, at
pounds on 24l 40 pounds. The court, in the
judgment given by Justice Brewer. sustains
the Circuit Court of Appeals, which de-
cided in favor of the railroad company.
Justice Brewer said that there was no
aVecment that the rates were unreasonable.
that Parsons is not seeking TO recover
money 1nequitably taken from him, but on
account OF the wrongful conduct OF the
company. Before shipper can recover
under the nterstate-commercc act he must
show not only the wrong done by. the car
rier, but that 1t operated TO his injury
says the court. IF he had shipped to New
York and been charged local rates he might
have recovered any excess thereon over
through rates. He did not ship TO New
York, and yet seeks to recover the extra
sum he might have been charged If he had
shipped. Penalties are not recoverable on
mere possibilities"
In the case of the Interstate-commerce
Commission VS.. the Detroit Grand Haven
& Milwaukee Railway Company appealed
from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Sixth district by the commission, the decree
of the court below was affirmed. Opinion
by Justice Shiras. The case was based on
petition of Stone & Carten, retail mer-
chants of Ionia, Mich, alleging violations
of Sections 2, and 4 of the interstate
commerce act. The Interstate-commerce
Commission sustained the position, but the
courts did not. The charge was that the
railroad company Furnished carriage free
not to the Ionian merchants. The court
held that 1.-The fourth section of the act
has in view only the transportation of pas
sengers and property by rail, and that when
the passengers and property reached and
were discharged from the cars at the con-
same charges as those received for similar
service at Ionia the duties cast upon the
company were fulfilled" Justice ShiraS
said that it was competent for the commits
sion to direct by general order that rail-
road companies should thereafter regard
carriage, when furnished free, as one OF the
terminal charges and include il as such in
their schedules.
Justice Peckham handed down the opin-
ion of the court in the case of l.. f. Par
sons. late district attorney for the north
ern district of Alabama, appealed from the
Court of Claims. The decision was adverse
to Parsonss claim that he was entitled,
under Section 769 of the Revised Statutes,
to hold his Office for four years, notwith-
standing the Presidents order of removal.
L
pontment was for four years, 1t might be
terminated earlier at the discretion of the
President. The judgment of the Court OF
Claims was affirmed The determination
of this case has been looked forward to
with interest because of it's possible effect
on the removal of office holders incident TO
the change of administration. Parsons was
removed from the office of United States
district attorney in Alabama in 1893, hav-
ing been appointed in 1890 He wrote a let
ter to the President, refusing to surrender
the place on the ground that, as he had
been appointed for a term of four years,
the President had no right to remove him
before the expiration of that time. He
has fought the case through the various
federal courts on this theory, losing IN the
lower courts, as he did to-day in the Su-
preme Court. Parsons has, however, not
been in possession of the office during the
contest on the day that he was removed
Emil O'NeiI was appointed to succeed him
and to him Parsons surrendered the Of
flee after an order was issued to him by
the Circuit Court to do So He prosecuted
the case on another basis from that time
The questions whether the statutes relat-
ing to national banks prohibiting them from
purchasing or subscribing to the stock of
another corporation and whether the want
of authority can be urged by the bank to
defeat an attempt to enforce against it the
liability of a stockholder were passed on
by the court in the case of the California
National Bank, plaintiff in error, VS.. Nat
Kennedy. 1t was held that the California
National Bank OF san Diego neIQ 95U StldI6S
Of stock of the California Savings Bank,
the former having suspended on Nov. IL,
1891, and the latter Dec. 29, 1891. The Su-
perior Court of San Diego county held that
the National Bank was responsible to the
creditors of the Savings Bank to the
amount of $1S5O7, the former making the
defense indicated above. The court holds
that national bank has no right to deal
in stocks, although it may accept them as
securities, and that it may ple;a!d, its want
in question. The transaction in the stock of
the Savings Bank is held to have been void.
and the judgment of the Supreme Court of
California against the National Bank is
reversed.
Several important cases were decided in
the United States Supreme Court to-day
on appeal from the Court of Private Land
Claims. One of these, in which the opinion
was rendered by Chief Justice Fuller, in.
volved the title to the San Miguel del Bado
land grant, including 315900 acres of land in
New Mexico. Two cases were included in
one decision, one OF these being an appeal
by the United States against Julian San
doval and the other an appeal by Hon. Levi
p Morton against the United States. The
original petition was filed in the case by
Sandoval and subsequently another was in
troduced by Morton, who asked for confir-
nation as successor to one Lorenzo. Both
claim that Marquee took the title to the
not named in the grant The Court of Pri-
vate Land Claims held that under the act
of partition of 1903 the grantees were rem
dered certain and dismissed the petitions of
Morton, confirming the grant in the name
of MARQUEE and all other persons who
might have settled on the land prior to
1S4S The contention on the part of the
United States was that the courts had no
power to confirm lands not allotted prior
to the date of the treaty because under the
laws of Spain and Mexico all such lands
remained in the government and passed TO
the United States The Supreme Court held
that at the date of the treaty of Guadalue
Hidalgo neither the settlers nor the town
on the grant could have demanded the legal
title to such lands of the former govern
ment and that the Court of Private Land
Claims was not empowered to pass the
title to either, remarking that IT was for the
political department to deal with the equi-
table rights involved. The decree in the
Morton case was therefore affirmed. while
that in the Sandoval case " as reversed.
The court, in an opinion by Justice
Brown. reversed the opinion of the Court
of Private Land Claims in the case of Joel
Parker Whitney against the United States,
involving TIE title to the Canada Decochita
in Bernallillo county in New Mexico con-
tanning 100 900 acres. The difficulty in deal
ing with the case found in the fact that
there was doubt as to the location of the
north and west boundaries. The court de-
cded that the holding of the court below as
but that the western boundary was not.
1t was on this account that the case was
reversed. The reversal was on a compare
lively unimportant point and the 1,500-acre
tract is materially reduced by the decision.
The court to-day affirmed the decision of
the Court of Private Land Claims in the