The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-12-17

these respects the state is supreme, ana its legislative body, conxorming Its action 10 the State constitution, may do ns 1t will. unrestrained by any provision of the Constitution of the United States. Although the inhabit- ants and property owners may suffer by such changes. or incur inconveni- ence. and their property isssened in value by the burden of increased tax alton or for any other reason. they have no right. by contract or otherwise. in the altered or, continual existence of the corporation or It's powers, and thsrs is nothing tn the Federal Constitution which protects them from these inJu- rtous consequences.
 n KAne With Censtttufion.
 The opponents Of the Greater Bir- minghasn bfii claimed that the act was offensive to Section 1s0 of the State Constitution, which provides that no- tice of the introduction of local bills must be published for at least four consecutive weeks before the intro duction. It was claimed that the jour- nal of the House does not show such publication of once Q week for four consecutive weeks. but only the con- ciusion that such publication was made Justice Sayre holds. as to this, that:
 "Injunction cannot be Grounded upon
  not aff1rmativeiy disclose that proper notice was given of the intention to introduce the bill.
 Sixnatures Not Necessary.
 Argument was raised that the act was illegal because hthe joint House Senate resolution, which recalled the bill after 1t mad gone to the Governor so that 1t could be amended. was not signed by both the Speaker of the A Go, ate, as provided by the constitution.
 Justice Sayre holds. in this. that the constitution does not intend to apply. in its demand that signatures of the presiding officers be attached to reso- iutions which are merely for the pur- pose of recalling bill from tne Gov ernor,s hands. The signatures are necessary. he says. only in cases where the resolution is of 8 Legislative char acter. and is in the nature of . law or enactment. Therefore. the lack Of signatures in this case is of no signi- ficanoe
 The final argument of the assailants which Justice sayre took up. was that the complainant held bonds of the city of Ensley, and feared that the secur- ity would be impaired by the annexa- ton of Ensley by Birmingham. Justice Sayre declared that:
 "It isa settled that obligations as- sumed by municipal corporations cam not be impaired by the Legislature. or. if changed. substantial equivalent must be substituted.
 Inasmuoh as the bill is effective Jan. 1, and there will be no session of the Supreme Court until Jan. IS. no ap- peal can be taken. The question is closed.
 x,fst of Decassons.
 The following is a full list of the decisions:
 DowDELL. c. T.:
 Birmingham Railway. Light and Power co. vs. Della Oden. appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court; affirmed.
 Charles q. Dickens vs. Murray & Peppers, appeal from Mobile Circuit Court; affirmed.
 Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. vs. T. ]. Davis. appeal from Montgomery City Court; affirmed.
 c. s. DeJarnette vs. D. R. Dreyfus. ct al. appeal from Montgomery City Court. reversed and remanded. SIMPSON. J.:
 Thomas W. Davis vs. Ollie Anderson. et al. appeal from Clarke Circuit Court: affirmed.
 Manistee Mil Co. ct, al. vs. Braxton B Hobdy. appeal from Monroe Cir cult Court: reversed and remanded.
 William A Shriner vs. John Craft appeal from Mobile Circuit Court; af- firmed.
 Mobile Light & Railroad Co. vs Alec Mackay. appeal from Mobile Law and Equity Court: affirmed.
 Southern Hardware & Supply O.. ct al. vs. Bloch Brothers. appeal from Mobile Circuit Court; affirmed
 John Doe. State Land Co. ct al. vs. Richard Roe. Factors & Traders In- surance Co, appeal from Mobile Law and Equity Court; affirmed.
 Ella B. Latham, ct al. vs. Virginia appeal from Baldwin Probate
 Iouisviile & Nashville Railroad co. vs. W. L Perkins. as administrator. etc. appeal from Escambia Circuit Court; reversed and remanded.
 I. A. Penton vs. Joe Williams. ap- peal from Coosa Circuit Court; re- versed and remanded-
 Pat Mallory vs. State of Alabama, appeal from Lee County Law and Equity Court: affirmed.
 Parsons Lumber Co. vs. West-Stegali Grain and Milling Co. appeal from Chiffon Circuit Court; reversed and 
 E. W. Thompson, ct al. vs. Warren Logan. appeal from Macon Circuit Court: reversed and remanded.
 State of Alabama, ex rel. City of vs. Hon. Wm. B. Fort. as Judge. etc, petition for mandamus. in Supreme Court; mandamus denied J.:
 G. W. Whitmore, administrator, vs. Alabama Consolidated Coal and Iron affirmed.
 Southern Railway Go. ys. Frank Holman. appeal from Sumter Chan cery court; appeal dismissed.
 Martha L. Young vs. John L. Brock. ct al. appeal from Morgan Circuit Court: reversed and remanded.
 Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. vs. W. T. Holland. administrator, ap- peal from Limestone Circuit Court; and remanded'
 Nashville Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway vs. J. c. Wallace, appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; affirmed.
 George Holland. ct al. vs. Fairbanks, Morse 6 Co, appeal from Morgan Law and Equity Court; affirmed.
 e. w. Hawkins vs. The State of Alabama. appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court; Affirmed.
 Southern Cotton OH Co. vs. Joseph Walker. appeal from Cullman Circuit Court; reversed and remanded.
 Northern, Alabama Traction Co vs. Henry Thomas, pro ami,s appeal from Morgan Law and Equity Court; af- firmed.
 Mary Lewis vs. the State of Ala bama. appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court; affirmed.
 George Scruggs vs. the State of Ala bama. appeal from Walker Law and Equity Court; affirmed.
 The City of Birmingham vs. J. T. Ridrwav appeal from Jefferson