The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-10-26

License; corporation paylnG Hcehse tax; privilege tax on corporate iran chise-Code, section 4122. subd. '. i'm poses license tax on breweries; subd. 55, imposing a privilege tax on codpor- ations, provides that corporations otherwise specifically required to pay license tax shall not he required to pay a privilege tax: Held, corporation do Ing brewing business and payine the brewers license tax Is also liable TOT the franchise tax on corporate privi- lege tax.
 E. Appeal from Mobile Chancery Court
 Heard before Hon. Thomas H. Smith.
 Affirmed-Opinion by Simpson. J.
 Weakley. C. J., Tyson and Anderson JJ., concur.
 ETHER1DGE BROS. V. SWAIN FE ABRAMS HAT co. Bill of Dfscovery-,(Decided June q.
 1906-41 So. Rep. 465)
 Creditors suits: discovery of assest; parties; nature of claim-The :a3. nat some of the claims of some of the cred itors were in the shape of notes with waiver of exemptions as to peraohal property does not render the court un- able to grant relief under sections sis S20. Code1S 96.
 Appeal from Conecuh Chanccry Court.
 Heard before Hon. w. L. Parxs.
 Aflrmed-Opinion by Simpson, J.
 Tyson, Anderson and Denson. JJ.. concur.
 CITY OF MOBILE V. FOWLER. ct al Bill to Enjoin Obstruction of Strce,-
 Decided June 3. 1s06-4l So. Rep
 46s)
 1. Dedication; acceptance; ofhcial acts; public use-Acceptance of a ded- ication, may be by formal acts Of ihe municipal authorities. or othe's author ized, CT 1t may be inferred from long public use.
 ?. Dedication plating and selling land-The plating of land showing streets and avenues. and the selling of lots with reference to the plat and the streets and avenues thereon. when done by the owner. is a complete dedication of the streets and avenues.
 B. Same; evidence of dedication- The fact that street appears on map, which is referred to in some of several deeds to land in tis vicinity, is not of it's self equivalent to dedica- ton.
 1. Same; prescriptions: evidence Testimony that certain lands formed a street before it was fenced In, without more, Is insufficient to show that 1t was used for such length of time as to become a public. highway by dedication and acceptance.
 5. Same; necessity of acceptance In order to render dedication such and irrevocable 1t must be accepted
 6. Pleading general dedication-It not appearing prima facie that cer- tain allegations made in. the bill were within the knowledge of respondents, d general denial of such allegations was sufficient to put in issue the allegations and require proof in support thereof
 Appeal from Mobile Chancery Court
 Heard before Hon. Thomas H. Smith.
 Ahirmed-Opinion by Anderson. J.
 Tyson, Simpson and Denson, JJ., con- cur.
 SICARD V. GUYLI.OW. EFT AL. Bill to Enjoin Ejectment and to Cor
 rect Description of Deeds. (Decid
 ed June 5th. 19Os.-41 So. Rep.
 474)
 Equity: Bill: Multifa-iousress.-Co plainant and G. purchased part of a plat of land from w. and complainant and G. went into possession of cer- tain parts of the plat under the'r deeds. w. retaining the remainder: on account of inaccuracies in descri2- tions there resulted confusion of boundaries on the face of the pap.T title. and G. claiming her deed con- veyed the land occupied by complail- ant, commenced a suit In election t" recover 1t; whereupon complainant filed his bill against G. and w. and wife. original grantors of both com- plainant and G.. to enjoin the eject ment suit and to correct errors in | description in both deeds. Held. bill was properly filed as preventing T multiplicity of suits and was not de murrable for multifariousness. Appeal from Jefferson Chancery court.
 Heard before don. 4. H. Benners. Reversed rendered and rsmanded. opinion by Weakley, c. ]. Tyson. Simpson and --nderson. U :. | concur.
 SMITH V. PIONEER MINING & MFG co. ..: l Action for Damages by .mploye for | Personal Injuries. | l. Mastt. and Servant: Injury to | Servant; Negligence of Masters sun 1 erintendent Liability of Master Statute--To create a liability against | the master under Supd /. sectioh 1749 Code 1896. 1t is not sufficient to show that the injury was caused by | the negligence of an employe en- trusted with superintenden' Q. it must also appear that the negligence occur rcd whilA such employe was in the ex- ercise of such superintendence. 2 Samc-The accident happened I'll this way: the injured employA ant others were drying out the sand pits for running molten metal into pigs and in doing this they were usins hot slas from a pile nearby convey ing it to tho sand pit in iadles. on' of the gang being away. the foreman was handling d ladle helping to dry out the sand when he spilled some O the molten slag on plaintiffs foot Th4s drving was not part or th foreman's business. Held the mdste was not liable to the ernpioye und@' subd 9 Section 1749, Code lsse'
 Appeal from Jefferson Cifcuo court
 Heard before Hon. A \. Coleman
 Affirmed Opinion by Weakley' <
 Tyson. simpson and Andersen. JJ concur
 WESTERN UNION TELEGRhPH TO v DICKENS, Damage for Trespass 70 Realty ' TreSpass; pleadings, yomplalnt- A count of d complaint alleging ma
 tresrass was committed upon the pop
 crtv nf the plaintiff "a description O which IS hereto attached marked 'ex
 hihit A and made a part hereotI th'i
 portiou of the same which lies adJt
 cent to the roadbcd of the Southerl Ry Company" is not sut ject to demur