926
FEDERAL REPORTER.
were incurred or such rights accrued; but they are not bound to follow later decisions of such courts, modifying the rule previously announced by them. E. W. Meddaugh and Geo. F. Edmnnds, for plaintiff in error. H. J. Beakes, for defendant in error. The cases cited in opinion were: Swan v. Williams, 2 Mich. 427; .People v. State Auditors, 9 Mich. 327; East Saginaw Manuf'g Co. v. East Saginaw, 19 Mich. 274; Township of Pine Grove v. Talcott, 19 Wall. 666; Railroad Co. v. County of Otoe, 16 Wall. 667; Olcott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678; Ohio L. Ins. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 432; City v. Lamson, 9 Wall. 485; Douglas v. County of Pike, 101 U. S. 687.
Trusts-Estate Granted by Married Woman. HEWITT 'V. PHELPS, 4 Morr. Trans. 455. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Mississippi. The question presented on trial on the merits was whether the trustee of an estate had power to charge the estate with a debt contracted for supplies furnished for the use of the estate. A decision wr.s rendered in the supreme court on April 10, 1882, the opinion being delivered by Mr. Justice Matthews, affirming the judgment of the circuit court: Where a married woman grants an estate to a trustee upon trust for her sole and separate use, with remainder to her surviving children, by the terms of which the trustee takes merely the title, without any active duties in regard to the estate, reserving to herself, during her own life-time, the power to sell or exchange the property; and, after her death, that such power shall be exercised solely by her husband surviving her, and all powers to superintend, possess, manage, and control the property are conferred exclusively upon her husband as agent for said trustee, and as agent and trustee for the grantor during her life, and as agent and trustee for her children after her death; but to be regarded, for the purposes of· the deed, not merely as an agent, but also as a co-trustee, the trustee not in anymanner to be respollsible for the acts and conduct of her said husband; and the deed gives neither the trustee nor the husband a right to charge the trust estate for the expense of running it,-creditors of the estate have no claim of subrogation, nor any ground for enforcing against the estate the payment of their demand for supplies furnished to the husband for the estate, though used by the trustee after the husband's death, and although both the husband and trustee were insolvent, and although the trustee admitted a liability for them; as neither his admissions, nor the admissions of the legal heirs, could, in contemplation of law, create any charge on the estate. William L. Nngent, for appellants. E. Jeffords, J. Z. George, and Charles W. Clarke, for appellees. The cases cited in the opinion as to this point were: Clopton v. Gholson, 53 Miss. 466; Norton v. Phelps, 54 Miss. 471.
NOTES OFDECIBIONS..
927
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.
