The Birmingham age-herald., 1906-05-10
TIE SUPREME COURT RENDERS DECISION Mutual Aid Association Not Bound by Certain Contracts C0LUMBIANA WINS CASE Shelby County Court House Will Not Be Moved to calera-Gambill's
 Case Is Returned for
 New Trial.
COLUMBIANA WINS CASE

OoSC iS fCediHS1 iOi
 New Trial.
 Montgomery. May 9-(Speeial)-Tht supreme court has held, in opinion writ
 ten by Mir Justice Tyson, that the South ern Mutual Aid association of Birming ham is not legally bound to pay certain matured and maturing contracts writer on ten-year time, in which 1t was agreed
 that all the premiums paid, less the amount of benefits returned, would be re-
 turned at the end of ten years from the date of issue. The court holds that the company is mutual and has no right, un.
 der it's charter, to levy a tax on other
 polieyholders to pay these preferred claims.
 This is the rock upon which the South. ern Mutual Aid stumbled when 1t was declared unable to meet it's obligations by the state insurance commissioner few months ago. This is also a part of
 the trouble about which suits have beer filed against the company as result Of the investigation by the commissioner Of insurance. There are about 400 of these special policies and 1s,000 of the common or ordinary contracts. As 1t is now the company will not have to pay the ten-year contracts and it would seem as result that those who have been holding them with the idea of getting their money back will be disappointed. Many of them have held on to them and not taken
 s.. to ttil l11 it as a sort of savings bank.
 Calera Loses Out.
 The litigation incident to the attempt
 to move the court house of Shelby county
 from Columbiana to Calera was closed
 today when the supreme court held the
 law by which 1t was thought authority tC make the levy for expenses was declared
 invalid. Thus the court house is left Columbiana.
 Herbert NToog, a resident of Florida sold whisky to a man in Monroe county Ala. and was Indicted and fined. the coun ty being prohibition. The supreme cour holds that as Moog Is a resident of an other state and the goods were bough for personal use the defendant is pro Iecteu DY the lnlt1Sldlt tCbiiitiNo ie'' W and the court had no right to fine him. A. A. Gambill license inspector of Birm ingham, against whom damages of WA were assessed in a suit brought by J. E Frqua for false arrest. has his case sen back for new trial because Of the taii ure to give a certain charge to the Jury as asked by Gambill.
 Robert Duke of Clarke county seems t' ,f,1 cheeks of lumber company. He wa fined by the lower court and appealed oi the ground that the cheeks were not law ful money and that q trade presuppose money The supreme court holds that the. were representatives of money Tn tn sense that they were valuable and coui' be redeemed in cash at certain specihe' times. and that the lower court did rish in fixing a penalty.
 Gray Case Argued. The case of Henry B. Gray Vs. 'th' Louisville and Nashville railroad and th South and North railroad, was argued today before the supreme court, Assoclat Justice Tyson sitting as chief justice II the place of Chief Justice Weakley wh' Is disaualfied because his firm, Cabanis X Weakley of Birmingham, represente' some of the minority stockholders or th South and North, who are suing with MT Gray. For the South and North appeare' Fred S. Ball. for the Louisville and Nash vile. Gregory l.. Smith of Mobile an' John P. Tillman of Birmingham; Tor MT Gray and associates Phares Coleman an Hugh Dent of Montgomery. George w Jones' assistant district counsel Tor LII Louisville and Nashville at Montgomery was also in the case In an advisory way not making a speech.
 The case was taken up on two ruling which are in fact in one. Some time ag' | inc South and North filed in the chancer! court of Birmingham bill to have al accounting of the management of the roa' l by inc Louisville and Nashville, owner l of the majority of the stock. Henry H Gray contendng that this was q nov l in the interest of the Louisville and Nash vile. sought and obtained in the cit. court of Montgomery an injunction against action sought in the Birmingham 1 court At the same time they asked receiver for the South and North, whicl was denied The directors of the Soutl and North were also injoined from selini l the South and North to the Louisville an' Nashville. giving the minority stockhold | CTS s27. 50 d share as was proposed, unti | All other matters in the courts could b adjusted.
 | The argument today was on the re ceivership decision, the attorneys fo l Gray appealing when the receiver was re I fused by the lower court. The South an | North attorneys appealed from the ruin l on the injunction granted. Hence tn l bills are pretty well crossed mp and tn court had some little trouble today in get | ting the matter fully strengthened out, 1 taking explanations from all the attorney l to make the situation entirely clear. Court Decisions. l Opinions in the following cases wer handed down by the supreme court to | day:
 1 Weakley, C. LA. Pelham vs. Chatta l hoochee Grocery company, appeal iron l Geneva circuit court; reversed and re | manded.
 Augustine M. Odom. executrix vs. Joh | I Moore. appeal from Birmingham cit court affirmed.
 Milton H. Collins vs. Western Cnio ] Telegraph company, appeal from Bir mingham city court; reversed and re manded.
 Tyson, J.-John A. Campbell. ct al vs i Shelby county. appeal from Shelby cir | cult court; appeal dismissed. | Jchn A. Campbell ct. al ys. Shelby coun ty. appeal from Shelby chancery court appeal dismissed.
 | William B. Brown. etc. ys. state ex re
 James IT. Gum. appeal from Shelby cir | cult court; appeal dismissed. l Southern Mutual Aid association ct a vs. Lula Boyd ct al., appeal from JeffcI