The Birmingham age-herald., 1917-06-01
CEMETERY LOT DECISION


 person cannot be dispossessed of s cemetery lot for debt and such lot cannot be given as security for debt under decision of the supreme court Thursday in the case of Bernice F. Kerlin ct al vs E. C. Ramage, ct al, from the Montgomery city court. Ra- mage and others sought to dispossess he defendants of a cemetery lot on ,1e ground that certain improvements made on it before the death of the original owner were not paid for and that the contract for the placing of the improvements provided that title would remain in Ramage and others until the work was done.
 The supreme court ruled that the dispossession of the defendants would mean the dspossession of the dead buried in the lot and that such could not be countenanced by the courts. BRIDGEPORT CASE
 Citizens of Bridgeport, Jackson county will determine for themselves whether or not they desire to sub stitute the commission form of gov ernment for the aldermanic system. esThe supreme court Thursday ruled that A. H. Moody, probate judge of Jackson county had right to rule ei4that the petition for the election was sufficient and that J. Luther Troxell mayor of Bridgeport, had no right to demand an open hearing after tho probate judge had reached his deci- sion.
 Troxell sought a writ of manda1nus requiring the probate judge to hold the hearing in order that he might show that the petition did not contain the required number of legal votes
 NOT RETROACTIVE
 Tn overruling an applicatio for re- hearing in the case of R. L. Bar rington vs. Mary W. Harrington, the supreme court Thursday finally de- cided that the law of 1915 giving woman the right to a divorce after living apart from her husband five years was not retroactive and that five years must elapse from the time the law was enacted before any wom- an can receive the benefit of it. Mrs. Harrington lost her case because she had not lived apart from her husband five years from the time the law was passed. She is a resident of Mont gomery, while her husband resides at Washington, D. c.
 LIST OF DECISIONS
 Decisions of the Alabama supreme court follow:
 Anderson, c. J.-John w. Gilchrist vs Mary J. Johnson, appeal from Nor gan chancery court; affirmed. e- Mcclellan, J.--Lida J. Haralson ct al vs John c. Whitcomb, appeal from Conecuh chancery court; affirmed.
 W. F. Wells vs. J. R. Parker, ap- peal from Houston circuit court; af- firmed.
 Katherine Kilgore vs. Birmingham Railway, Light and Power company, appeal from Jefferson circuit court; affirmed
 Louisville and Nashville Railroad company vs. Nina L. Moran, adminis- tratrix. etc., appeal from Morgan law and equity court; reversed and re- \ manded
 Cora West vs A. H. Arlington. ex- ecutor. ct al appeal from Montgom- cry chancery court; affirmed.
 Sayre, J.--Ex parte Mobile Light and Railroad company, petition for certi- orari to court of appeals; petition dis missed.
 Emma J. Hanby vs. Cahaba Coal company, ct als.. appeal from Jeffer- son circuit court; reversed and re- manded.
 J Luther Troxell vs. A. H. Moody, judge of probate. etc, appeal from Jackson circuit court; affirmed.
 Gardner, J.-Montgomery Light and Fraction company vs. Morgan Devin- ney, appeal from Montgomery city court; affirmed. Y
 Mutual Il1e insurance company OI New York vs. T. B. Lovejoy. appeal from Montgomery circuit court; re- versed and remanded
 Ex parte Joe Bell. petition for cer- tiorari to the court of appeals; writ denied.
 R. H. Walker vs. w. H. Yarbroush St all, appeal from Houston chancery court; reversed, rendered and re- handed.
 Per curiam: Bernice E. Kerlin ct al vs. E. C. Ramage ct al. appeal from Montgomery city court; reversed and remanded.
 RULINGS ON REHEARINGS Rulings on applications for rehear- ings in the supreme court follow: Y The state of Alabama vs. Pensacola 0t. Andrews and Gulf Steamship com. pany appeal from Mobile city court Application overruled.
 Ex parte county of Mobile. petition for certiorari to court of appeals; ap- plication overruled and opinion modi- lied.
 Elk parte Pauline Well, petition fol .-certiorari to court of appeals; appli- soation overruled.
 R. L. Harrington vs. Mary ". Bar