The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-06-09
STATE SUPREME COURT
AGAINST DEPOT AT GUM TIcRsVII.IsE.
,... rv.o, HoId. That Speculation s. cottom Futures Is Legitimate
 Funinens Transaction Other Opinions.

Ry affirming the decision of lowe. court the Supreme Court or Alapa,mat ,a m an opinion yeste5disSS sss TisSSt eXf of tSe M state to comnel the Nashville, Chattanooga and St' louis Railway Company to remove its passenger depot from Wyetn Si.y 'o These two towns are practically the same. When the depot was pui!t ~ was thought that the bulk or the ,oWh G,ty G2'a and inc depot was located there. For seven years the people of Gunters- vile waged an effort to have the oepot removed. but without d ,oyer eneS.i conrt decided win the railway company and once before the Supreme Court upheiu tne lower court; This last case % NwsnhY,,,s wnhch, IS Chattanooga and St. Louis hanhwsy Ih Company. was appealed from the Shan. S cery Court of Marshall county where 1t was lost by the people;
 In reversing and rendering caF' from the Chancery court of Marsh County, the Supreme Court yesf9srdias; 9nsisce Tyson, held that speculating in cotton futures is a legitimate business. c. A. Nuckles bought cotton futures of ,ii Hooper pnttinWg WheP adSitional S margins were due Nuckles gave mortgage on property to cover them. them The money was n, lost in n tee foreepIose spIeH the mortgage. Nuckles pleaded that the contract was illegitimate inasmueh as 1t was a form of gambling. The me iowes nd Hooper appealed to the supreme Court Justice Tyson holds that cotton spec ulation Is legitimate form oi puslnss, enterprise and that the lower couri erred Consequently the case IS re- versed and rendered..
 Opinions in the following other cases were handed down by the supreme Court:
 | Tyson, J.
 John William Tagert vs. The State of Alabama. appeal from Jenerson reon,e ediini- F M, King, administrator, etc, vs. | Woodstock Iron Company appeal rom Anniston City Court; reversed and re-
 Etowah Mining Company ct al .vs. Wills Valley Mining and Ma1udfactuTriing 1idaG ring Court; reversed and rendered. A. w. Rails vs. Alabama Steel and Wire Company ct al. appeal from Gads- den City Court; affirmed.
 May, appeal from Montgomery chanc- cry Court; reversed and rendered. from Lowndes Circuit Court; reversed and remanded.
 Anderson, J.
 w P. Davis vs, Lourania Denham,
 il. b. Greenwood. ct al vs. Trigg, DODDS and Company, appear rom D1dT- shall Chancery Court, reversed and rendered.
 appeal from Morgan Circuit Court, af-
 James Henry vs. Southern Railway Company. appeal from Madison Circuit Court, affirmed.
 Moses Yates vs. Huntsville Hoop and Heading Company, appeal from Madi- son Circuit Court, affirmed.
 Southern Railway Company vs: George Morris, appeal from Colbert Circuit Court, reversed and remanded.
 Electric Park Contest.
 Lawyers representing the MontSom- cry Traction Company yesterday arr gued before the Supreme Court mo- tion to advance the case of the Mont gomery Traction Company against the Montgomery Street Railway appealed from the Montgomery Chancery Court so as to get an early decision.
 This is the controversy decided py Chancellor w. l.. Parks in favor or the Street Railway. The Street Rail prohibiting the Traction Company from building it's tracks into Electric. Park. Chancellor Parks declined to dissolve the injunction and from this decision the Traction Company appealed to tn" higher court. A.. =.
 The Traction Company hopes to get decision early in the summer so as to proceed with the work of laying tracks into the park.
 The Supreme Court adjourned yes terday until next Monday when cases from the Montgomery division VIII pc considered.