Volume 77 — Mississippi Reports

From the chancery court of Oktibbeha county. I'loN. Baxter McFarlaND, Chancellor. William H. Harvey, and others, appellees, were the complainants in the court below; the appellants, John A. Carter and. ethers, were defendants there. Ella A. Harvey died in June, 1885, leaving her husband, appellee, William H. Harvey, and three infant children as her heirs. She was, for some time after her death, believed to have died intestate. Appellants owned a judgment against W. H. Harvey.

Feom the chancery court of Kemper county. HoN. Abam M. Byrd, Chancellor. Amelia J. Ogletree, appellee, was the complainant in the court below; the Mutual Reserve Life Association, the appellant, and one Rosenbaum were defendants there. The bill averred that Benjamin IT.

Peom the chancery court of Washington county. TIon. A. PI. Longino, Chancellor. The appellants, Freaner Johnson and others, were complainants in the court below; the appellees were defendants there. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. 1. The actual purpose and contemplation of the testator must, govern if it can possibly be ascertained. 2.

From tbe circuit court of Claiborne county. How. William K. MoLauriw. Judge. Anderson, appellee, was fhe plaintiff in tbe court below; tbe railroad company was defendant there. The facts are sufficiently apparent from tbe opinion of tbe court. The plaintiff was not a passenger. He was in tbe baggage car, where be bad no right to be, without paying bis fare, and without having transportation furnished him, one or tbe other of which be knew tbe rules of tbe company required.

From tbe circuit court of Lauderdale county. HoN. GreeN B. IíuddeestoN, Judge. Henderson, tbe appellee, was tbe plaintiff in tbe court below; Ormond, appellant, was defendant there. Tbe facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. Tbe declaration counts only upon a sale, and there is no proof that Henderson ever sold tbe fifteen barrels of sugar to Ormond. Tbe variance is fatal, and demends a reversal. Ghism v. Alcorn, 71 Hiss., 506.

From the circuit court, second district, of Yalobusha county. Hon. W. A. Bele^ Special Judge. Mrs. Lovejoy, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; the appellant, Nations, was defendant there. The facts upon which the decision -is based are stated in the opinion of the court.

Ekom the circuit court of Madison county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. The appellant, the Home Mutual Building and Loan Association, was the plaintiff in the court below; Leonard and his .wife, appellees, were'defendants there. Leonard obtained a loan from appellant, giving a deed of trust on the premises in controversy to secure the same. Afterwards he obtained two other loans and executed deeds of trust on same lands to secure them.

Kiiom the chancery court of Adams county. IÍON. Claude PiNtard, Chancellor. Mary Ella Hebron and others, appellants, were complainants in the court below; George 13. Kelly and others, appellees, were defendants there. Mary E. Leggett died in 1879, leaving a will, by which she gave a $3,000 legacy to G. Malin Davis, in payment of a debt due said Davis by the husband of the testatrix.

From the chancery court of Sunflower county. JIoN. A. H. Longino, Chancellor. Held: in all the courts of this, state as prima facie evidence that the land embraced therein was duly and legally sold to the levee commissioners up to and including tlie year 1874,” etc. In other words, that section provides, or rather the act provides (if the construction asked by appellant is given to it), and in effect says to the…

Ee>om the circuit court, first district, of Hinds county. Hoist. Hobert Powell, Judge. Eugene 0. Sykes, judge of the circuit court of the first judicial district, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below.

Nrom the chancery court, first district, of Hinds county. HoN. WaRR,EN Cowaw, Chancellor. Woodruff and others, appellants, were the complainants in the court below; the state and others, appellees, were defendants them. The case was previously decided by the state su£>reme court, and is reported Woodruff v. State, 66 Miss., 298.

From the chancery court of DeSoto county. IloN. James 0. Lokgstkeet, Chancellor. Ilarkleroad, the ward, and Bass, his guardian, the appellants, were the complainants in the court below; Maxwell, ex chancery clerk and the sureties on his official bond, appellees, were defendants there. Under the will of his father, Ilarkleroad, the ward, was not entitled to the custody and control of a part of the estate bequeathed to him until he should become twenty-five years of age.

Prom the circuit court of Jones county. IELoN. A. G-. Mayers, Judge. Ramsey, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below Brown and his partners, members of the firm of W. P. Brown & Co., appellees, were defendants there. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. Here is a case presented, under which an employe was to-work for an employer under a written contract for a'season of eight months for the consideration of $800.

Ekom the chancery court of Tallahatchie county. HoN. A. H. LoNgiNO, Chancellor. Robert E. Stauffer and others, appellants, were the complainants in the court below; the British & American' Mortgage Company was defendant there. The opinion states the case. Appellants, infants, and their mother inherited from their father the notes sued on before they became due.

Prom the chancery court of Franklin county. IIoN. WilliaM C. Martin, Chancellor. Claughton and others, now appellees, were complainants in the court below, Mary J. Middleton and others, appellants, were defendants there; the appellants demurred to the bill of complaint; their demurrer was overruled in the court below, and they appealed to the supreme court. The facts averred in the bill are stated in the opinion of the court.

Prom the circuit court of Copiah county. HoN. Robert Poweri., Judge. Lusk, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; he sued Copiah county, appellant, demanding damages caused by the construction and maintenance of a public road over and across his land. The code sections involved (code 1892, §§ 3892 and 3894), are as follows: “3892 (823).

EeoM the circuit court of Winston county. IToN. GreeN B. HuudlestoN, Judge. Gilland Brothers, appellees, were plaintiffs 'in the court below: the appellant, Yarbrough, ivas defendant there.

BroM the circuit court, second district, of Panola county. Hon. Z. II. StepiieNS, Judge. Owen, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; tho railroad company, appellee, was defendant there. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. The railroad company had judgment acquitting it from all liability in the circuit court, and the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court.

From the circuit court of Hancock county. HoN. Tiiaddeus A. Wood, Judge. The state, ex. rel., Bourgeois, appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Laizer, appellee, was defendant there. The opinion states the case. The section of the code discussed by counsel is as follows: “3052 (400).

From tbe circuit court of 01 arise county. HoN. Thaddeus A. Wood, Judge. Andrews, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; the appellees were defendants there. The opinion of the court fully states the facts. Bills of exchange are personal property. Under the statute they are as much the subject of larceny as chattels.

Fbom tbe chancery court of Copiah county. HoN. H. C. Conn, Chancellor. Sokoloski, appellant, was complainant in the court below; the building and loan association was defendant there. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>1. Building and Loan Association. Nonresident. Fixed premium. Usury.</p> <p>The contract of a nonresident building and loan association is usurious when the sum of the fixed premium, and the interest on the loan, exceeds ten per centum per annum. Solcolosloi v. New South, etc., Association. ante, p. 155.</p> <p>2.. Reformation of Contracts. Deed. Evidence.</p> <p>The reformation of a deed so as to include more land, is unwarranted in the absence of convincing proof that such was the intention of both parties to the grant.</p> <p>3. Usury. How determined.</p> <p>Usury is determined by what the creditor has the right, according to the terms of the contract if enforced, to demand in any situation during its life, and not by what he may ask under an accidental situation.</p>

From the chancery court of Bolivar county. JíoN. James 0. Longstreet, Chancellor. Bate Field, the appellant, was' the complainant in the court below; the Middlesex Banking Co. and others, were defendants , there. The facts upon which the decision of the court is based are sufficiently apparent from the opinion.

FROM the circuit court of Hinds county, first district. IíoN. IÍOB35R.T .Powell, Judge. Held: without the act being pleaded as an exemption, that the act of 1884, p. 29, restored the exemption to- the Natchez, Jackson & Columbus R. R. Co. This declaration is not supported either by the language of the act itself or by its relation to the legislation it amends. Every presumption is against the grant.

From tbo circuit court, second district,.of Carroll county. How. W. E. Stevews, Judge. Coats & 'Sons, appellants, were the plaintiffs in the court below; Bacon & Co., appellees, were defendants there. Held: that oral testimony was admissible to change the terms of tbe contract, or, as tbe judge expressed it, to explain tbe intention of tbe appellees in making tbe order.

FroM the circuit court of Madison county. ITON. Robert Powell, Judge. Sims, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company was defendant there.

From the chancery court, first district, of Hinds county. IíoN. H. C. CoNN, Chancellor. Mills, administrator, the appellant, was the complainant in the court below; the insurance company was defendant there. The clause of the contract in question, so far as relates to the compensation of appellant’s intestate, is in the following words: “7.

From: the circuit court, second district, of Carroll county. HoN. W. F. SteveNS, Judge. Brown, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company was defendant there. The questions discussed in the opinion arose upon the action of the court below upon the instructions asked by the parties litigant, which conformed to the view expressed in the opinion.

Fi:,om the circuit coart of Marion county. Thaddex’s A. Wood, Judge.

3?rom the chancery court of Lauderdale county. Hon. Nati-iaN C. Hum, Chancellor. Beavers, appellant, was complainant in. the court below; Spinks, appellee, was defendant there. The suit arose out of a contract concerning a certain device for which a patent to Beavers was pending in the United States patent office, by which Beavers granted to Spinks the exclusive agency within certain territory for the manufacture and sale of the device.

FROM the circuit court of Lauderdale county. Hon. C-. Q. Haul, Special Judge. Cochran, appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; the insurance company, appellant, was defendant there. C. A. Huddleston, W. S. Huddleston, W. L. Ellis and S. B. Cooper were the owners of a college building in Daleville, Mississippi.

From: the circuit court of Sunflower county. HoN. F. A. Mosttgomeey, Judge. • Hodges, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Causey, appellee, was defendant there. The suit was an action of trespass for-the killing by defendant of plaintiff’s dog — an English deerhound.

FROM the chancery court of Monroe county. IÍON. Baxtee MoEart.AND, Special Chancellor. This case arose out of a contest over the final account of John M. .Rye, surviving executor of the last will and testament of Samuel Beeks, deceased. Exceptions were filed to the account by David A. Beeks and others, who were interested in the estate. The court below overruled the exceptions, and the exceptors appealed to the supreme court. Samuel Beeks died testate in January, 1857.

From the circuit court, second district, of Carroll county. HoN. William F. SteveNs, Judge. William Bacon, tbe appellee, was indicted for manslaughter.

Feom tlie circuit court of Washington county. IíoN. F. A. MoNtgomeby, Judge. Allen James and Edward Clark were indicted for burglary and larceny.

From the circuit court, second district, of Perry county. McLaurin, district attorney, suing on the relation of Jackson, appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; Conner, appellant, was defendant there. Tbe suit was begun by information in quo warranto, and it sought to question Conner’s right to the office of municipal treasurer of the city of Hattiesburg.

From the circuit court of second district, Coahoma county. Host. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. Esca M. Denton, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Ira C. Denton, the appellee, was defendant there. The suit was begun in a justice’s court, and was decided in the court of original jurisdiction for the defendant. The plaintiff undertook to appeal to the circuit court, and executed an appeal bond in the penalty of seventy-five dollars.

<p>Municipalities. Change of boundaries. Appeal to circuit court. Code 1893, 2913a, 2913. Ib., g 79.</p> <p>Upon appeal to the circuit court from the judgment of the municipal authorities changing the boundaries of a municipality, under §§ 2912a, 2913, code 1892, authorizing such a proceeding, the trial is de novo, and there is no necessity for a bill of exceptions embodying the evidence upon which the judgment appealed from was rendered. Code 1892, § 79, has no application to such case.</p>

From the circuit court of Sharkey county. IioN. William K. McLaubiN, Judge, o Aden, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company was defendant there. The plaintiff recovered-a judgment for $250 in the circuit court, and the defendant appealed to the supreme court. The facts are sufficiently apparent from the opinion of the court. The following facts cannot reasonably be disputed, and they are the material facts of the case: 1.

Feom: the circuit court of Warren comity.' HoN. William N. McLattriN, Judge. Bell, the appellant, ivas the plaintiff in the court below; the Oil Mill Company, appellee, was defendant there. The plaintiff was an employe of defendant, engaged with others in painting the roof of the mill 'house with hot pitch.

FroM the circuit court of Madison county. Host. Kobert Powele, Judge. Fore, the appellee, was the plaintiff in-the court below; Puckett, the appellant, was the defendant there. The action was replevin for property aggregating in value $612.25.

Feom the circuit court of Yazoo county. FIoN. Robert Powell, Judge. The appellee, Luckett, was the plaintiff in the court below; appellant, Williams, was the defendant there. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The contract being an entirety, only one recovery can be rightfully had for its breach. State v. Morrison, 60 Hiss., 74; Hanes v. Planters, etc., Association, 55 Hiss., 654; Butt v. Williams, 15 So. Pep. (Hiss.), 130.

EeoM the circuit court, first district, of Hinds county. How. Robeet Powell, Judge. Lula B. Williams, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; the Jackson Bank, the appellant, was defendant there. The suit was an action of replevin for a life insurance policy.

From the circuit court, first, district, of Carroll county. HoN. Wiuliam F. Rtrvjshs, Judge. The Blacfcston Mercantile• Company, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; the defendants there were one Holman and Thomas D. McPherson, the appellee, who were partners in the sawmill business.

From the circuit court of Leflore county. I-IoN. F. A. MoNtgomeey, Judge. Mrs. McNeill, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; Mahoney, appellant, was defendant there. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The statute involved is as folhrws: “1068.

FeoM tbe chancery court of Lauderdale county. Hon. Nathan C. Hill, Chancellor. Caroline Colvin and others, appellees, were the complainants in the court below: Garrett and others, appellants, were defendants there. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. The bill was prematurely filed. Why go ;through the ceremony of partitioning this property before the debts are paid?

EroM the chancery court of Lauderdale county. HoN. NatiiaN 0. Hill, Chancellor. The facts .are fully stated in-the opinion of the court. What was the purpose the statute, code 1892, §§ 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912'? Manifestly'to provide security to the estate of the deceased partner.

From: the chancery court, second district, o'f Coahoma county. íToN. A. H. LoNGTNO, Chancellor. The Oliver Finnie Grocery Company and others, the appellants, were the complainants in the court below; Bodenheimer and others were defendants there. The opinion states the case. Appellants were creditors of appellee, Bodenheimer, and filed a bill to vacate an assignment of a stock of goods made by their debtor to one Newberger.

Erom tbe judgment of Hox. Z. M. Stei->heNS, circuit judge, third district, denying appellant’s application for release from custody on habeas corpus. Bridgforth, the appellant, was the defendant in a bastardy proceeding, and upon an issue made up in the circuit court of DeSoto county he was adjudged to be the real father of the bastard and damages in the sum of $24 per year for ten years, to be paid annually, were assessed against him accordingly.

From the circuit court of Monroe county. Hon. Eugene O. Sykes, Judge. The Memphis Machine Works, appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; the city of Aberdeen was defendant there. The suit was upon an open-account for $398.05, one item of which alone was for $350. The defendant, by its pleading, admitted all of the account' save the one item for $350, to which it made defense.

From the circuit court of Harrison county. HoN. Tiiaddeus A. Wood, Judge. . Bohn, the appellant, a physician, was the plaintiff in the court below; Lowery, the appellee, was defendant there. The action was upon an account for professional services rendered by the physician to defendant during a severe illness of the latter.

From tbe circuit court of Marshall county. HoN. Z. M. Stephens, Judges Tbe city of Holly Springs, tbe appellee, was tbe plaintiff in the court below; tbe American Surety Company, the appellant, was defendant there. The facts are stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.

From the chancery court of Warren county. IIoN. William C. Maetitst, Chancellor. Piazza, the appellee, was the complainant in the court, below; Demourelle, appellant, was defendant- there. The purpose of the suit was to enjoin the prosecution of an action of ejectment.

Feom the chancery court, first district, of Coahoma county. Hon. A. H. Longino, Chancellor. The Union & Planters’ Banlc, the appellant, was the complainant in the court below; Allen and others were defendants there. This case must be read in connection with a former report of it, Allen v. Union, etc., Bank, 72 Miss., 549, where the facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court then delivered.

Fkom tbe chancery court of DeSoto county. IIoN. James 0. LoNgsteeet, Chancellor. Harlderoad, the ward, and Bass, his guardian, appellees, were complainants, and Maxwell, ex-chancery clerk, and the sureties on his official bond, appellants, were defendants in the court below. The ease was once before in the supreme court on the appeal of said complainants from a decree sustaining defendants’ demurrer to their bill of complaint, and is reported in this volume, anle 117.

.From the circuit court of Itawamba county. IIon. Eugene 0. Sykes, Judge. The state, suing for the use of Itawamba county, appellee, was'the plaintiff in the court beloiv; Arnold, and the sureties on his bond as county treasurer, appellants, were- defendants there. The plaintiff had judgment in the circuit court and defendants.appealed to the supreme court. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Fbom the circuit court, second district, of Yalobusha county. JioN. Z. M. Stephens., Judge. This case was a prosecution of appellee, Tate, defendant in the court below, for perjury. At the conclusion of the testimony of the first witness for the state, the defendant moved the court to exclude the evidence and to instruct the jury, peremptorily, to find defendant not guilty. This motion the court below sustained.

From the circuit court of Jackson county. Hon. Tiiaddeus A. Wood, Judge. The appellee, Green, having been convicted in the munbipal court of Ocean Springs, a town operating under the code “3008.

Fbom: the circuit court of Leflore county. HoN. P. A. MONTGOMERY, Judge. Houck & Co., appellants, were 'the plaintiffs in the court below; Wright, appellee, was defendant there. Vose & Sons were manufacturers of pianos at Boston, Massachusetts; Houck & Co.'were dealers in musical instruments at Memphis, Tennessee.

Feom the circuit court, first district, of Coahoma county. JIow. E. A. MONTGOMERY, Judge. The Board of Levee Commissioners of the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta, appellant, began proceedings under the statute authorizing the same, to condemn for levee' purposes the land of Hendricks and others, appellees. ■ An issue was made up and tried in the circuit court to ascertain the damages to which the landowners were entitled.

Beom the,circuit court of Warren county. -Hon. William K. McLauein, Judge. Murdock, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company, appellee, was defendant there. At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, on defendant’s application, the court below gave a peremptory instruction and a judgment for defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. The facts are stated in the opinion. Thei court below erred in granting the peremptory • instruction for defendant.

From the circuit court, second district, of Yalobusha county. Hon. Wieeiam. A. Berk, Special Judge. The Tennessee Brewing Co., the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Hendricks, the appellee, was defendant there. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. There is but the one point for the court to consider in this case, and that is whether the writing be such a writing as will prevent the bar of the three years’ statute of limitations.

FROM the circuit court, second district, of Coahoma county. Hon. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. The opinion states the case.

From tbe circuit court of Monroe county. irlos. EugicN's 0. Sykes, Judge. Fast, tbe appellant, was tbe plaintiff in tbe court below; tbe railroad company, tbe appellee, was defendant there. The facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of tbe court. Tbe court erred in granting tbe peremptory charge.

TTkom the chancery court of Monroe county. Hon. BaxteR McPablano, Chancellor. Owen and others, appellants, were the complainants in the court below, the Monroe County Alliance and others were defendants there. The case was before the supreme court heretofore — Monroe County Alliance v. Owen, 25 So. Rep., 876.

From the circuit court of Monroe county. HoN. EugeNe 0. Sykes, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The peremptory instruction should not have been given. The plaintiff was not a trespasser; he had a right to cross the track where he was endeavoring to do so. The question whether the railroad company’s employe exercised such care as the situation imposed and the law demanded under the circumstances, should have been left to the jury.

From the circuit court, first district, of Hinds county. Hoar. Robert Powell, Judge. This was a suit by Sylvester Carter, plaintiff in the court below, against the Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co., defendant there, for personal injuries received by him, the loss of a limb, for which he recovered a judgment for $500.

From the circuit court of Bolivar county. Hon E. A. Montgomery, Judge. Richardson, the appellant, Was plaintiff in the court below, and the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners was defendant there. This case arose out of the construction of a levee, which has since become known as the “Huntington Short Line,” in Bolivar county.

From the circuit court of Warren county. Hon. W. Iv. MoLauriN, Judge. Wright, the appellant, was the plaintiff, and Mordaunt, the appellee, was defendant in the court below. The. opinion states the case. The sections of the code of 1892 referred to are as follows: “2748 (2678).

NroM tbe circuit court of Franklin county. HoN. JbfpersoN Truly, Judge. Bunckley, appellant, was .indicted for and convicted of larceny, and appealed to tbe supreme court. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion of tbe court. Tbe judgment must be reversed because tbe trial court, over the objection of appellant, allowed tbe witnesses for tbe state to testify as. to tbe failure of tbe accused to become a witness on tbe preliminary hearing. This was violative of § U41, code 1892.

From: the circuit court of Lincoln county. JIoN. Thomas Brady, Jr.,* Special Judge. The state, on the relation of the attorney-general, appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Judge Robert Powell, ap-pellee, was defendant there.

Prom tbe chancery court .of Greene county. Hon. Nathan 0. Hile, Chancellor. Tbe Pascagoula Boom Company, a duly authorized common carrier of logs down tbe Pascagoula river, and others, were the complainants in the court below. Dixon, and others, who maintained the boom, objected to, were defendants there. The decree of the court below from which the complainants appealed to tbe supreme court, was only in part in their favor.

From the circuit court of Pike county. IÍON. JeffersoN Truly, Judge. McCarlie, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Atkinson, the appellee, was defendant there. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>FROM the circuit court, second district, of Coahoma county.</p> <p>Hon. F. A. Montgomery, Judge.</p> <p>Chism, trustee, etc., the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; the bank, appellee, was defendant there. The facts arc sufficiently apparent from the opinion of the court. A demurrer to the declaration was sustained in the court below, and the suit dismissed; appeal by plaintiff.</p> <p>Section 60 of the bankrupt act of 1898 declares clearly and specifically what is to be considered a “preference” under the bankrupt law. Clause “a” provides as follows:</p> <p>“A person shall be deemed to have given a preference if, being insolvent, he has procured or suffered a judgment to be entered against him in favor of any person, or made a transfer of any of his .property, and the effect of the enforcement of such judgment or transfer will be to enable any one of his creditors to obtain a 'greater percentage of his debt than any other of such creditors of the same class.”</p> <p>It will thus be seen that there are two distinct acts which are declared to constitute a preference — either that the party has suffered a judgment to be entered against himself in favor of some one else which is one of the acts forbidden; or, secondly, has made a transfer of any of his property, no matter how small a part, nor what proportion may be thus transferred, and provided that such judgment or transfer shall have the effect of enabling any one of his creditors to obtain a larger percentage of his debt than any other creditor will obtain.</p> <p>The court will observe that the law now looks as much to the effect of wliat is done by the debtor as it does to the intent with which a payment or transfer is made, and wherever the effect is to give one creditor more than another can obtain, the law declares it to be a preference, whether the parties intended it as such or not.</p> <p>Chapter 1, section 1, of the bankrupt law has aided the courts very materially in construing the law and arriving at the true interpretation to be placed upon this provision.</p> <p>The court’s attention in this connection is called to clause 25 of said section 1, in which the word “transfer” is defined and its meaning set forth.</p> <p>It is there declared that the word “transfer” shall include the sale, and every other and different mode of disposing of or parting with property, or the possession of property, absolutely or conditionally, as a paj'ment, pledge, mortgage, gift, or security. Connect this clause, therefore, with the provisions of section 60, and the meaning is so clear and well defined as to leave absolutely no room for doubt or construction.</p> <p>Brief of counsel for appellee has been lost from the record. •</p>

From the circuit court, second district, of Coahoma county. Hon. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. Lula Jenkins, appellee’s intestate, instituted this suit, an action of trespass on land, in her lifetime. After her death it was revived in the name of, and prosecuted by, William A. Jenkins, her administrator, who became the plaintiff in the court below; Wdlkerson, the appellant, was defendant there.

FROM the chancery court of Bolivar county. HoN. A. H. LoNgtNO, Chancellor. Godfrey Frank et al., the appellants, were complainants in the court below; Mary Covington et al., appellees, were defendants there. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

FroM tbe circuit court of Webster county. HoN. WilliaM F. Steyews, Judge. Doolittle and others, the appellees, began this controversy by a petition to the board of supervisors asking that proceedings be had by the board to establish a part of the county into a stock law district, under code 1892, § 2056, as amended by Laws 1894, p. 48, and Laws 1897, p. 21.

Feom the circuit court of Warren county. IIon. WilliaM Iv. McLaurtn, Judge. Held: “(1) Where the subject-matter of fire insurance, and the nature of the loss are within the revised statutes of Missouri 1819 (§ 6009), the stipulations of the policy muse yield to the statute.

From tbe circuit court of Washington county. JION. F. A. MONTGOMERY, J. Nabers, the appellant, was the plaintiff m the court below; Goldforb, the appellee, was defendant there. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Erom the circuit court of Lauderdale county. Hon. Green B. Huddleston, Judge. Winner & Meyer, appellants, were plaintiffs in the court below: Weems, as garnishee, was a defendant there. Winner & Meyer, a partnership, sued out an attachment before a justice of the peace of Lauderdale county for $86.71 against 0. 0. McMullen. The affidavit for attachment gave the individual names of the plaintiffs comprising the co-partnership.

From: tbe chancery court, second district, of Coahoma county. HoN. A. McO. Kimbrough, Chancellor. Broaddus, the appellee, was the complainant in the court below; the town of Clarksdale was defendant there. Without giving notice of the proposed issuance of bonds, as required by § 3016 of the code of 1892, the municipal authorities ordered an election to take the sense of the electors on the question whether or not to issue municipal bonds.

Neom tbe chancery court of Harrison county. IIoN. Nati-iaN 0. Hill, chancellor. Maybin, the appellant, was the. complainant .in the court below'; the city of Biloxi was defendant there. The facts .are stated in the opinion of the court. . . A city is powerless to hold two elections for the issuance of two different and distinct sets of bonds at the same time, at the same place, with the same polling booths and the same election officers.

Beom the circuit court of Lauderdale county. Hon. G-Reen B. Huddleston, Judge. The appellant, John Hamilton, a colored lad, together with Tom Bates and Bud Henry, were indicted by the grand jury for burglary. The appellant was separately tried, convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary, from which he prosecuted an appeal to the supreme court.

From the circuit court of Washington county. Hon. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. McClintock, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Mrs. Joiner, the appellee, was defendant there. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The lease should not be construed to be “a personal privilege” in J. W. McClintock, the original lessee, which could not be assigned.

Eeom tbe circuit court of Lauderdale county. HoN. GeeeN B. HuddlestoN, Judge.' Tbe state, suing for tbe use of Eliza J. Moulds, tbe appellant, was the plaintiff in tbe court below. Yaugbn and tbe sureties on bis official bond as a member of tbe board of supervisors, tbe appellees, were defendants there.

Fbom the chancery court of Tunica county. Host. A. McO. Nimbbough, Chancellor. Tatum, the appellant, was the complainant in the court below; Simpson Tate and another, members of the co-partnership of Tate & Co., were defendants there. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. Is it not against conscience to allow a judgment to be executed which is an injustice to the appellant as well Us to the witness on whose testimony it was founded?

From tbe circuit court of Monroe county. líoN. EugeNe O. SyKes, Judge. Tbe state, suing for tbe use of George Bragg, appellant, was tbe plaintiff in tbe court below; John J. Basham, sheriff, and others, tbe appellees, were defendants there. Bragg was convicted of a misdemeanor, and after conviction was delivered' by tbe sheriff into the hands of a county convict contractor, and while in the custody of the latter was shot and seriously wounded by an employe of the contractor.

Ebom: the circuit court of Lowndes county. How. EugeNE 0. Sykes., Judge. Deloach, the appellant, was prosecuted for burglary. The opinion of the court states the case. If it appear probable that an. error has been committed and an injustice done, this court will reverse the case and allow defendant a trial on the charge against him.

Erom the circuit court of Lauderdale county. HoN. GbeeN B. HuddhestoN, Judge. Strait was indicted for burglary, tried, convicted, and appealed to the supreme court. The opinion states the facts of the case. On the uncontroverted facts appellant was not guilty of burglary. The authorities are uniform. There is not a discordant note. The cases are compiled and the law stated in 5 Am. & Eng. Ene. L., 51, and in Conner v. People, 25 L. R. A., 341.

From the circuit court of Noxubee county. Hon. G-reen B. Huddleston, Judge. The Meridian Fertilizer Factory, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Edwards was defendant in attachment, ■ and Bush and others, appellees, were claimants there. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The court refused to permit the appellant to introduce evidence to show the insolvency of the grantor in the bill of sale at the time that he made it.

Feom tbe circuit court of Lowndes county. HoN. Eugeke O. Sykes, Judge. Klaus, the appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; Moore, the appellee, was defendant there. The action was replevin for personal property. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. The lien of Mrs. Harris and her assignee, Moore, was barred by the statute of limitations of six years.

Ebom tbe circuit court of Lincoln county. HoN. RobeRt Powell, Judge. Lena Wilkinson was indicted for infanticide. She was tried, convicted and appealed to tibie supreme court. Tbe nature of tlie contentions is apparent from the opinion of the court. The testimony of Butler was admitted on the supposition that it was a confession that the appellant killed the children with a knife, and as evidencing that fact.

Fbom: the circuit court of Pontotoc county. 'PIoN. EugeNe O. Sykes,. Judge. Bolton, the appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; Roebuck, the appellee, was defendant there. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. In ejectment, only the legal title is involved, and equitable defenses are inadmissible. Morgan v. Blewitt, 72 Miss., 903; Edwards v. Edwards, 15 So. Rep., 42.

From tbe circuit court of Lauderdale county. HoN. Green B. Huddleston, Judge. Oscar Wilson, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company was defendant there. Wilson’s cause of action grew out of the following facts: In September, 1897, he was in Nashville, Tennessee, and sought passage by railroad from that city to Meridian, Mississippi.

From the circuit court of Lee county. Hon. Eugene O. Syees, Judge. ■Mrs. Martin, administratrix, was the plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company was defendant there. From a ver-diet, upon a peremptory instruction, and judgment for defendant the plaintiff appea]ed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

FROM the circuit court of Lincoln county. IToN. Robert Powell, Judge. Sophronia Johnson, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company ivas .defendant there. A judgment and verdict was rendered in the court below in plaintiff’s favor for $1,625, and the defendant appealed to the supreme court. The opinion states the facts.

Fbom the circuit court of Lincoln county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Kerl and another, the appellees, were the plaintiffs in the court below; the railroad company was defendant there. The opinion of the court sufficiently states the case. The suit was to recover damages for injuries to live stock shipped from McComb City to New Orleans. There was strong evidence of contributory negligence by plaintiffs in regard to the loading of the animals.

FROM tbe circuit court of Lincoln county. LToN. Bobebt Pómpele, Judge. Mrs. King, tbe appellee, .was tbe plaintiff in tbe court below; East, tbe appellant, was defendant there. From a judgment in favor of tbe plaintiff tbe defendant appealed to tbe supreme court. The opinion states tbe facts. Tbe appellant never made a contract, express or implied, with tbe appellee for board for bis wife and children.

Neom: the chancery court, first district, of Chickasaw county. HoN. HeNey L. Muiodrow, Chancellor. ON MOTION. William B. Hall, the appellant, was the complainant in the court belotv; Ellen C. Hall, the appellee, was defendant there. When the ease reached the supreme court the appellee moved the court for the allowance to her of a reasonable solicitor’s fee, to be paid by appellant, for resisting the appeal.

From the chancery court of Tippah county. IIoN. James C. LoNGStreet, Chancellor. William M. Hopper, deceased, the ancestor of the appellees, was the original complainant in the court below; after his death the suit was revived in the. name of John D. Hopper and others, appellees. Drewry, appellant, was defendant in the court below. From a decree in complainants’ favor the defendant appealed to the supreme court. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

FeoM the circuit court of Tallahatchie county. IToN. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. Clement, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; the telegraph company was defendant there. From a judgment for defendant the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court. The opinion of the court sufficiently states the facts.

From: tbe circuit court of Lowndes county. IÍON. EugeNE 0. Syxes, Judge. Silverberg, tbe appellee, was plaintiff, and Tennison, tbe appellant, was defendant in' tbe court below. Tbe opinion states tbe case. Tbe cattle seized under tbe writ of replevin were not tbe cattle described in the affidavit upon which tbe writ issued. This is shown by tbe description of tbe cattle seized, as appears in tbe return of tbe officer seizing, upon tbe writ.

From the chancery court of Jackson county. ÍIon: Nathan C. Hill, Chancellor. The New Orleans Railway & Mill Supply Co., the appellee, was the complainant, and the appellants, Gatti and wife, were defendants in the court below. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

FeoM tbe circuit court of Marshall county.’ IioN. Z. M. Stbpttfws. Judge. Paul Jeffries, tbe appellant, was indicted for murder. Tbe case was once before in tbe supreme court, and tbe decision upon tbe first appeal is reported. Jeffries v. Staie, 74 Miss., 675.

From the circuit court of Monroe county. IIojst: EuqeNe O. Stoces, Judge. Kehl, the appellant, was plaintiff, and the Hope Oil Mill & Compress Co., the appellee, was defendant in the court below. From a judgment for defendant, upon peremptory instruction, the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. The briefs of counsel in this case were lost from the record, and the reporter was unable to find them.

From tlie chancery court of Hinds county, first district. IíoN. HeNey C. OoNN, Chancellor. This was a proceeding to -enforce a lien for taxes for the years 1886-1891, inclusive, on what was formerly the property of the Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Railway Co., in the hands of the appellants, the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley and Illinois Central Railroad Companies.

<p>From the circuit court of Hinds county, first district.</p> <p>TIoN. Robert Powell, Judge.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

FROM tbe circuit court of Tallabatcbie county. Hon. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. Tbe opinion states tbe case. Tbe motion filed to quasb tbe execution in tbe circuit court assigns two reasons wby said judgment is void. Of course if tbe judgment is void, tbe motion is good as to both issues. Is tbis a void judgment? We say not. Appellants sued for $185 and interest. Defendant was properly served with process, appeared and contested plaintiff’s demand.

From the circuit court of Madison county. IIoN. Robekt Powell, Judge. Baldwin, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company, appellant, was defendant there. Prom a judgment in plaintiff’s favor defendant appealed to the supreme court. The opinion sufficiently states the case.

EeoM the circuit court of Lee county. I-IoN. EugeNE O. Syues, Judge. St. Clair, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company was defendant there. The ease was in the supreme court on a former ajipeal and is reported. St. Clair v. Kansas City, etc., R. R. Co., 76 Miss., 473. The case was then appealed by the plaintiff from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the declaration and dismissing the suit.

From the circuit court of Amite county. Host. William P. Cassedy, Judge, on first trial. HoN, JepeersoN Truly, Judge, on second trial. The town of Glosten, the apellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Harrell and others, appellees, were defendants there. . The suit was upon the official bond of one Ratcliff, the municipal treasurer of the town, the appellees being the sureties on the bond.

From the circuit court of Bolivar county. IIoN. F. A. MoNtgomery, Judge. Lesser, the appellant,- was the plaintiff in the court below: Dame, the appellee, was defendant there. The opinion of the court states the facts. The right to cut the timber was acquired in good faith from the occupant of the land. Even if the occupant was without title, the party who expended money and labor in manufacturing the cross-ties ought not to lose the same.

FROM tbe circuit court of Jackson county. IToN. Thaddeus A. Wood, Judge. Cook,'the appellant, was arraigned before a justice of tbe peace upon a charge of having violated code 1892, § 917, which section is as follows: “917 (2723)'.

Puom the circuit court of Covington county. Hoar. JohN B,. ENOCHS, Judge. Polk, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Covington county, the appellee, was defendant there. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. By the contract the appellant was entitled to have the paupers of the county at the poorhouse.

Feom the chancery court of Claiborne county. JIoN. W. O. Martin, Chancellor. Mrs. Chambliss, the appellant, was the complainant in the court below; Person et al., appellees, were defendants there. Held: from September 6th, 1869, was the dower and exemption which was sold subject to1 her life right to same, and with reversionary interest in J. W. Person. No other line of reasoning can be indulged.

Fiiom the circuit court of-Attalla county. How. William F. SteveNS', Judge. Appellant and another person were indicted jointly for an assault with intent to kill and murder. The section of the code mentioned in the opinion is in these words: “1417 (3068).

Fbom tbe circuit court of Grenada county. TToN. William F. SteveNS, Judge. Tbe appellant, Wood, was tbe plaintiff in tbe court below; appellee, Baily, was defendant there. Tbe opinion states tbe case.

Pkom the chancery court of Hinds county, first district. IToN. HeNRY 0. CoNN, Chancellor. Held: that B had the right to the money named in the order, and the city would be protected in paying him, even though notified by A not to do so. Certainly under a decision like this, under the circumstances connected with the case at bar, Mrs. Williams must be awarded the funds in the controversy.

Erom tbe chancery court, first district, of Hinds county. Host. H. 0. CoNN, Chancellor. Sophia Murphy, the. appellant, was the complainant, and the Independent Order of the Sons and Daughters of Jacob of America, a benevolent society, the appellee, was the defendant in the court below. One Delia Murphy, a daughter of appellant, joined the appellee society December 16, 1896.

Erom tbe circuit court, second district, of Coahoma county. I-IoN. E. A. MONTGOMERY, Judge. Mrs. Cheairs, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Coats, the appellee, was defendant there. From a judgment in defendant's favor the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court. The opinion states the facts. The tenant, Coats, knew of the mortgage when he took the lease.

From the circuit court of Claiborne county. TIon. William K. McLaurin, Judge. Anderson and others, the appellants, were the plaintiffs in the court below; the telegraph company was defendant there. From a judgment for the defendant the plaintiffs appealed to the supreme court. The opinion states the facts. This was a case of continuing guaranty.

From tlie circuit court of Grenada county. Hon. William F. Stevens,. Judge. Mrs. Collins and her two children, the appellants were the plaintiffs in the court below; the railroad company was defendant there.

From the chancery court of Jackson county. How. Natiiaw O. Hile, Chancellor. Vignaud, the appellant, w^as the complainant in the court below; I)ean and others; the appellees, were defendants there. From a decree of the court below in favor of defendants the complainant appealed to the supreme court.

From the circuit court of Quitman county. HoN. F. A. MONTGOMERY, Judge. The appellants were plaintiffs, and the appellee defendant in the court below. The opinion states the case. The recitals in the deed made by the president of the board of supervisors to Cooper and Jamison show that the law then in force in regard to the leasing of sixteenth sections was completely complied with.

Feom. the circuit court of Copiab county. IIoN. Kobeet Powell, Judge. Haley and others, the appellants, were plaintiffs in tbe court below; Taylor, tbe appellee, was defendant there. The opinion state -the facts. There is no pretense of proof in the record that Taylor ever had authority to cut the timber from any source, from the five plaintiffs other than Albert, Henry and Jim Haley.

From the chancery court of Lee county. TToN. Baxter McBaelaND, Chancellor. Abernathy, the appellee, as administrator of the estate of one Bankhead, deceased, instituted this cause in the court below against Cock, administrator of the estate of one Bobinson, deceased, the object of which was to have a claim in favor of Bankhead’s estate allowed against and paid by the estate of Bobinson.

]?R,om tbe circuit court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Robert Powe.lt., Judge. Dinkins, tbe appellee, was tbe plaintiff in tbe court below; the state, tbe appellant, was defendant there. From a judgment in plaintiff’s favor tbe state appealed to tbe supreme court. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.

FROM tbe circuit court of Washington county. HoN. F. A. MONTGOMERY, Judge. Adams, state revenue agent, appellant, was tbe plaintiff, and the city of Greenville, tbe appellee, was defendant in tbe court below. From a judgment in favor of the defendant the plaintiff appealed to tbe supreme court. Tbe opinion states tbe facts.

FROM the chancery court, second district, of Hinds county. Hon. Henry C. Conn, Chancellor. The Sewing Machine Co., appellee, was the complainant in the court below. The facts are stated in the previous report (76 Miss., 821), to wliicb reference is made. Tbe opinion now reported shows how the case came before the court a second time. [A synopsis of the briefs of counsel on both sides is given in the former report of tbe case, 76 Miss., page 822.]

Prom tlie chancery court of Harrison county. IIoN. NathaN 0. Hill, Chancellor. Pratt, the appellant, was the complainant or petitioner in the court below; Hargreaves and others, the appellees, were defendants there.

ITeom the chancery court of Sunflower county. How. A. McO. Kimbrough, Chancellor. Shaw and others, appellees, were the complainants in the court below; Mullins and others, appellants, were defendants there. The object of the bill was to cancel a tax title held by appellants as a cloud upon- complainants’ title to the land in controversy. The decree of the court below canceled the tax title and the defendants appealed to the supreme court-.

Beom the circuit court of J ackson county. Hon. Thaddeus A. Wood, Judge. Tbe appellant, Valverde,’ was plaintiff, and tbe appellee, Spottswood, defendant, in the court below. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

3?eom tbe circuit court of Warren county. HoN. William K. McLaubiN, Judge. Mitchell, the appellant, was the plaintiff, and the railway-company, appellee, was defendant, in the court below. The opinion of the court states the facts.

From the circuit court of Lowndes county. ITon. Eugene 0. Sykes, Judge. This was a suit by Mrs. Flood, appellee, against Alexander, the appellant, to recover damages for cutting trees on the plaintiff’s land. The judgment of the court below was in plaintiff’s favor, from which defendant appealed. The opinion of the court gives the state of the record upon which the question decided arose.

Neom: the circuit court of Lafayette county. IíoN. Z. ]VI. Stephens, Judge. The appellee, Julia A. Woolley was plaintiff, and tbe appellant railroad company, defendant in the court below. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The proximate cause of the injury in this case was the negligence of 'some fellow-servant of the engineer — 'either the engineer, fireman or brakeman on the train who- had handled the car, or of the depot agent.

Fuom the circuit court, second district, of Coahoma county. Hon. B. A. Montgomery, Judge. John T. Butt and another, the appellees, were plaintiffs in the court below; the Southern Home Building & Loan Association, appellant, was defendant there. The appellees were members of a co-partnership doing business under the name Butt & Butt, and were practicing lawyers. The opinion states the additional facts.