Year: 1875

made defendants about 20 proceed TO the collec
ton Of those by seizing and selling the ocomo
tves and rolling stock generally Of the company,
with other personal property. They say that the lands
not liable 10 any State taxation anthe time Of the
assessment evy and they pray that these treasurers
who made defendants may be enoned from further
proceedings for their collection The grounds on which
this exemption is claimed may be divided into three
distinct propositions some Of which are applicable
all the lands and others to only part OF them


That by the third section Of the Of 1862 under
which the company was organized and by which tho
lands within the ten-mile limit were granted in aid Of
the construction Of the road il was provided that
all such lands should be sold within three years
after the entire road shall have been completed shall
be subject to settlement and pre-emption like other
lands at price not to exceed 81 25 per acre DO
paid to the company and II is alleged that these lands
are liable TO this pre- empton which would be defeated
by sale ob them for the taxes


2 That by the amendatory act of 1864 which ex-
tends the grant 10 twenty miles on each side Of tho
road it provided that before any of the land granted
shall be conveyed to the company there shall first be
paid into the Treasury Of the United States the of
surveying selecting and conveying the same, by said
company and that, these costs not having been paid
a sale for taxes would defeat the right of the United
States to enforce this claim and their expenses


That under the JOINT resolution OF April 10 1869
authorizing the President to appoint a commission
inquire into the manner IN which the road had been
constructed and the report was unfavorabe to take
steps to secure It's proper construction the Secretary
had refused to issue patents for these lands Withholding
the title as security for the performance of what
required IN that respect


By the decision Of the Court these points the de-
csion in the railway company Prescott C6 Wall,
sos is modified and overruled so far il asserts tho
contingent right of preemption in lands granted 10
the Pacific Railroad Company to constitute an exemp-
ton of those lands from State taxation, but affirmed
far 1t holds that lands which the of survey
have not been paid, and for which the United States
have not issued patent 10 the company are exempt
from State taxation but where the government has
issued the patent the lands taxable whether
Of those excosts has been made to the United States


Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion


THE ST. CLoUD-PoLLARD CASA LUSArIo SHOULD NOT


HOTEL


Jacob Lyon, plaintiff in error, VS.. Maria A. n Pol
ardln error TO the Supreme Court Of the District OF
ColumbiA-Mr justice Miller delivered the opinion Of
the Court The defendant in error, plaintiff below de-
clared written contract by which Lyon agreed to
furnish the means Of carrying the St Cloud Hotel of
this city, and Mrs Pollard agreed to superin-
tend and conduct It, For this service she
TO receive fifth OF the net profits in ascertanng
which the paid by Lyon for the house be
excluded Either party at liberty to terminate the
contract by giving thirty days notice in writing The
breach alleged is that the defendant elected plaintiff
from the premises without having given the stipulated
notice. Under pleas which amount to the general issue
defendant undertook 10 show that he had given the
tIce required, and, under special notice OF what he
would oer in evidence he offered prove that plain
tin UNIT to perform her part OF tho contract by
reason OF the use OF oplates and by reason OF her
unsound mental condition. These offers, as to
the use Of opates and the unsound mental condition,
the subjects of bills of exceptions, numbered
two and three We do not agree with counsel that
for the insanity Of plaintiff her mental ncapacity to
perform her part OF the contract whether from natural
InhrInItes from the of opium, the only
edy Of the defendant is action against her the
contract The plaintiff was employed to perform i'm
porant and specific duties Her compensation for this
to be oneith Of the net proceeds of the business
which she had agreed 10 superntend. If she rendered
herself or otherwise became incapable of performing
these duties that Of Itself authorized defendant to re-
send terminate the contract He not
bound to continue the superintendent of
large hotel person who unatic
who stupid under the influence Of
narcotics that her presence danger and injury,
and who could render no reasonable service. II she
could render defendant not bound to con-
tnue 1t tor the thirty days which the termination
OF it by notice required. The Court below erred in
fusng admit this evidence. The defendant offered
evidence of a service of notice, on July II,
plaintiff under the contract 10 terminate IL; also evil
dence OF service of notice the 18th Of September
of his intention 10 act the first notice, and
that the time had expired. Testimony was
also given tending to show waiver or with
drawa Of the first notice. The plaintiff was dismissed
about the 4th OF October On this testimony the Court
asked by defendant to instruct the jury that even
if the notice Of July II had been wholly withdrawn
the subsequent notice of September 10 in legal
effect a renewal Of the former notice, and of itself
operated terminate said contract at the expiration of
thirty days from its date Assuming, the bill of
ceptons 10 show that the date of the notice Of
September 10 the date Of its service plaintiff,
think the Court erred in refusing this prayer Re-