The sea coast echo. [volume] (Bay Saint Louis, Miss.) 1892-current, 1904-06-11
|ME COURT
HAS ADJOURNED.
btton Mills Win Suit Against
]. l. r. r. Road Sought to
Contract = Interesting Case
|ng Ownership Of Oyster

XlQdy SfOhhSt e
second Monday in November.
lon was notable in the large
4 cases decided and important
It's passed upon, the volume Of
BIZ unusually large when it is
"a that the bench contains only
smbers.
OF widespread importance pas
by the court just prior to adj
b was that of the Laurel Cotton
Y the Gulf C Ship Island Road,
Involved the right OF a railroad
TO make a freight rate contract
hipper that will enable the latter
competition, and also the right
lids to allow milling in transit.
y 7th of February, 1900, a con-
\ entered into between the Gulf
b Island Road and citizens OF
the terms of which provided that
urel citizens would erect a cot
zbry the railroad would grant and
n a rate on the manufactured
Hot to exceed the rates granted
where competitive cotton mills
bed, notably Meridian and Stone
laurel is about 75 miles south of
bll. The railroad also agreed to
#lling in transit.
Baurel Cotton Mills started opera
April, 1901, and the contract with
Il Island road continued in force
BIZ, 1903, when 1T was cancelled
warming by the railroad COM
\ the ground that its terms were
i of the interstate commerce
ID also the laws OF the MISSISSIPPI
foad commission, being in the
bf unlawful determination, and
Batting the law regarding rebates
feight rates we're increased and
kirel Cotton Mills brought suit
fca the contract and also collect
bf rates paid, amounting to about
IN date suit was filed.
chancellor in the lower court up
e contention OF the railroad, but
|gthy and ably written decision,
Truly reversed the lower court
hnd ordered the reinstatement of
Is on the ground that there is no
phibiting the railroad company
|anting the same rates TO other
corporations In the same ter
that the contract does not dis
lte, is not violative of the inter-
'mmerce law, and that the mill
|ransit arrangement is legal, and
legitimate outcome of the estab-
ht of new industries and enter
Justice Truly also pointed out
the milling in transit arrange
Ehich is generally effective in all
the country, were declared il
\ would paralyze numerous in
in which millions of dollars are
=, In summing up the case he
nat the contract was not void on
and it was a question of proof
hetheT 1t is void In fact,
IRsHlP OF OYSTER REEFS.
her highly interesting and i'm
case decided by the court was
the Barataria Canning Company
UT, from the chancery court of
IN county. Appellants leased
ppeile q strip Of land reaching
the gulf from Biloxi known as
;adit, and erected thereon a S75,-
Ter canning factory. They also
bout $4,000 planting oyster beds
waters in front OF Biloxi, and Sc
from the board Of supervisors a
u these waters and the right to
Q oysters therein.
appelle then attempted to oust
'pnetors Of the factory, and pre-
EN- from taking oysters in front
property on the ground that he
'ed riparian rights thereto. JUS
uly read the opinion Of the court
J contraaicting this contention I
clared that the owner Of land fac
Q seashore possesses no more
" the lands beneath the water
ny other citizen; that it is a public
! and the boards of supervisors,
act Oh the legislature, have control
'me and the power to grant leases
) A decision contrary to this
Said ,,i have affected property values
mississippi iss coast valued at more
million dollars.