Municipal Aid to Railroads-Curative Acts. . . , TOWN OF THOMPSON 'D. .. Error to the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York. The case was 4ecided in the supreme court of the United States, at the October term, 1880, and .the opinion Was delivered by Mr. Justice Harlan. affirming the decision of the circuit court: Where tIle state constitution does not in terms, or by necessary intendment, restrain the legislature from qonferring upon municipal authorities the power to sUQscribe to the stock of a railroad corporation, and by taxation to the necessary funds for the payment thereof, it may authorize or require a municipal corporation, by,mbscription to the stock, to in constructing a railroad connected with public interests of the municipality, and to provide for payment by issuing bonds or by taxation.. That when the authority was made to depend upon the consent of the town, it is in the discretion of the legislature to prescribe how such consent s.hall be given, and it migllt remit a part of the conditions imposed, or heal any defects which may have occurred in the performance by the town of those conditions. 'X. F. Bush, forplaintitf in error· . ,William M. Evartst for defendant in error. The cases cited in the opinion were: Scipio v. Wright, 101 U. S.676i Bank of Rome v. Village of Rome, 18 N. Y. 38; S. C. 19 N. Y. 20; People v. Mitchell, 35 N. Y. 552; Thompson v. Lee CountYt 3 Wall. 330; People Batchellor, 53 N. Y. 131; Town of Duanesburgh v. Jenkins, 57 N. Y. 188; Williams v. Town of Duanesburgh, 66 N. Y.129; Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175; Beloit v. Morgan, 7 Wall. 619; St. Joseph Township v. Rogers, 16 Wall 663; Clark·v. City of Rochester, 13 How. Pro 204; Horton v. Town of Thompson, 71 N. Y. 520; Cooper ·V. Town of Thompson, 13 Blatchf. 434; County of Warren v. Marcy, 97 U. S. 105; Murray V. Lylburn, 2 Johns. Ch. 441; Leitch v. Wells, 48 N. Y. 585. State Constitution-Construction. WADE 'D. TOWN OF WALNUT, 4 Morr. Trans. 398. Error to the cirCUIt court of the United States for the northem district of Illinois. The decision of the supreme court was rendered on April 3, 1882, Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivering the opinion of the court affirming the judgment of the circuit court. The ques. tion decided was whether a certain section of the Illinois constitution, relating to" municipal subscriptions to railroads or private corporations," was in force on a particular date. It was held that where, in numerous cases, the supreme court has assumed tbat the section in question took effect on the day fixed by the supreme court of the state, the question will not be considered as an open one while the supreme court of the state adheres to its present rulings. George A. Sanders and Thomas S. McClelland, for plaintiff in error. W. C. Goudy and Allan C. Story, for defendant in error. The cases cited in opinion were: Town of Concord v. Portsmouth Say. Bank, 92 U. S. 625; County of Moultrie v. Rockingham Ten-cent Say. Bank. Id. 631; County of Randolph v. Post, 93 U. S. 502; Fairfield v. Gallatin Co. 100 U. S. 51; Walnut v. Wade, 103 U. S. 683; Town of Louisville v. Portsmouth Say. Bank, 13 Law Rep. 193. See ante, 765, note.
Collision-Mutual Fault. STEAM TOW-BOAT LINE '0. CALEB; CALEB '0. THE S. A. STEVENS; THE OTHELLO 'V. CALEB. Appeals from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of New York, decided in the supreme court of the United states at the October term, 1880, Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivering the opinion of the court affirming the decree of the lower court, to the effect that two steamers are mutually in fault for a collision where one failed to give timely notice by whistles of a change of course, and the other neglected to slow down and take proper precautions to avoid the collision after it was seen to be imminent. Henry T. Wing, for libellant. A. Van Santvoord, for the Stevens. C. Van Santvoord, for the Tow-boat Line. Beebe, Wilcox & Hobbs, for the Othello. Admiralty-Practice-Remanding Cause to District Court. STEAM-SIIIP Co. v. MOUNT; THE BENEFAOTOR'V. SAME. These wele appeals from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of New York, and were heard and decided in the supreme court at the Oetober term, 1880, the decision being rendered by Mr. Justice Bradley. Under a question of practice, it appears that section 636 of the Revised Statutes extends to admiralty proceedings, and gives the United States courts power, after hearing rules are already estaba cause on appeal, to remand with directions. lished regulating proceedings, to obtain the benefit of a limited liability, until the determination of such proceedings, proceedings. for' the condemnation of the vessel in fault in a case of collision ought to be stayed.
END OJ' CASES IN VOL. 11