Lawrence democrat. (Lawrenceburg, Tenn.) 1884-1925, 1904-02-05
LAWRENCEBURG, TENN, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY
NORTH CAROLINA LOST.
Ordered to Pay Amount Due on Rail-
road Bonds to South Dakota.

Washington, Feb. 1.-The case Of
the State of South Dakota VS.. the
State of North Carolina today was
decided by the United States Supreme
Court favorably to South Dakota. The
case involved the validity Of a mort
gage on the stock of the North Caro-
lima Railway Company, given by the
State of North Carolina to secure the
payment of State bonds given IN aid
OF the road in 1867 The State Of
South Dakota holds ten bonds of ST.
600 each under gift from Simon
Schaefer and Samuel M. Schaefer, of
New York City, the amount due on
the bonds and coupons attached be-
ing $27 400. The opinion was rendered
by Justice Brewer and the decree of
the court was embodied in the follow
ing order:
"A decree WILL therefore, be enter
ed, which, after finding the amount
due on the bonds and coupons in suit
to be $27 400, no interest being recov.
cradle, and that the same are secured
by 100 shares of the stock of the North
Carolina Railroad Company, belong.
ing to the State of North Carolina,
and directs that the said State of
North Carolina pay said amount to
the State of South Dakota, and that
in default of such payment an order
of sale be issued to the marshal of
this court, directing him to sell at
public auction all the interest of the
State of North Carolina in and to 100
shares of the capital stock of the
North Carolina Railroad Company,
such sale to be made at the east
front door of the capitol building in
this city, public notice to be given
of such sale by advertisement in some
daily paper published in the city of
Raleigh, N c., and also in some daily
paper published in the city of Wash
ington."
The chief justice and Justices
White, McKenna and Day united in a
dissenting opinion.
The decision of the court is con-
sidered an important one and as mark
ing a new departure in ordering the
sale of property in dispute in case of
failure to satisfy judgment. JUS
tice Brewer said there was mo reas-
enable doubt of the validity of the
bonds and mortgages in the contro.
versy," nor question respecting the
title of South Dakota to the bonds"
and he asserted the jurisdiction of
the court in cases brought by one
State against another State to en-
force property rights. He added:
I'VE are confronted with the con-
tention that there is no power in this
court to enforce such a judgment, and
that such lack of power is conclusive
evidence that, Notwithstanding the
general language of the constitution,
there is an implied exception of ac-
tions brought to recover money. The
public property held by any municipal
ity, city, county. or State Is exempt
from seizure upon execution, because
It is held by such corporation, not as
part of its private assets, but as a
trustee for the public purposes.
There is in this case a mortgage
of property, and the sale of that prop
erty under foreclosure may satisfy
the plaintiffs claim. If that should
pO ehO iooulI IhoiS Wouiu pe HO HeCeS-
sity for personal judgment against
the State. Equity is satisfied by de-
cree for foreclosure and sale of the
mortgaged property, leaving the ques-
tion Of a judgment over for any de-
ficiency, to be determined when, if
ever, it arises And surely, if, as we
have often held, this court has juris-
diction of any action by one State
against another to recover a tract of
la1d, there would seem to be no doubt
of the Jurisdiction of one to render
decree for the sale of personal prop
erty "