The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1906-12-25
Supreme Court Decides in Favor
of State.
State Lad Full Power to Lease the
Road-Court also Decides That il
VIII not EniOin the Building of
Bridge Across Pamlico Riycr-Oth-
or Opinions Filed.
Especial 10 The Messeneer)

Raleigh, n. c, December 22.-The
supreme court filed the following opin-
ions: Hill VS.. Atlantic & North Caro-
lima railway from Craven, affirmed;
Pedrick vs.. Railroad, from Beaufort,
affirmed; Keel VS.. Contraction Co.
from Wayne. affirmed; Sutton vs.
Davis, from Union, modified; Holland
vs.. Railroad, from Moore. no error;
Canady vs.. Railroad, from GuilfOrd, re-
vised; Hickory VS.. Railroad, from Ca
taWba, former decree modified: Duck
worth vs.. Null. from Burke. reversed;
Bank VS.. Hollingsworth, from Bun
cOmbe, no error; HairSton VS.. Leather
Company, from Buncombe, no error:
Ledford VS.. Emerson, from Cherokee,
no error on each appeal; state vs. Hes
ter, from Rutherfordton, motion to re-
instate, appeal continued until next
term
The most important opinion is the
case Hill VS.. Atlantic and North Caro-
lima railway writtenb V Justice Walker
1t is Of great length Hill and the
commissioners of Craven sued to annul
the lesser to make The court says the
Carolina railway to the Howland I'm
prOvement Company, now the Atlantic
and North Carolina company. The
principal point was whether the lease
was ultra wires or beyond the power of
the lesser to make, the court says the
case is exceedingly important, but
former decisions of this court greatly
lessen difficulty of deciding it. If it
were an open question it would be very
serious problem. This charter and that
Of the North Carolina railway are pre-
cisely similar parts Of them being
copies of each other and the SAGE thing
, applies to this lease. The power to
farm out" which is gwen in the char
ter fully authorizes the making Of the
lease. The court found in the North Car
olina railway case one which was very
we'll considered After the Richmond
and Danville railway had taken over
the North Carolina railway under d
charter forbid the change but the
courts held the road which had the
lease had all the rights and privileges
granted later by this court which de-
| cisively answered questions of ultra
F1TeS over 81 years ago. JuOS0 LJuS,
! in the court below, while differing from
the view held by the court in North
Carolina railway lease case, yet held
| the lease to be valid Judge Walker
says the supreme court cOncurs fully
with him in this opinion.
Another case of much interest IL
| North Carolina is that OF FedTiCk VS..
Railroad, in which the court decides
| that it, will not enjoIn the building OF
the bridge across the PamilcO river at
| Washington. The Legislature autGO:i-
zed the construction Of such a bridge
and Pedrick and others sought TO an
nul this act Of that body. The Court
will not interfere in the matter. It
is clear that the state has cGntIo! Of its
navigable waters and THAI it has given
the right to the railway company to
cross the river This COurt viii not
interfere with great public improve
meents which have been given full
rights in such manner. lie case OF Jan
nady VS. Railroad the court says \Grh
! Carolina courts will folio" the law a
decided in other states