Volume 78 — Mississippi Reports

From the circuit court of Jones county. Hon. John R. Enochs, Judge. The state, for the use of McLaurin, appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below. McDaniel, mayor. of the village of Sandersville, and the sureties on his official bond, appellees, were defendants there.

From the circuit court, second district of Panola county. Hon. Z. M. Stephens, Judge. The state, suing for the use of Panola county, appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Oliver, and others, appellees, were defendants there. The suit was upon the bond of one J. B. Wynne, deceased, who in his lifetime was the county convict contractor of Panola county, and the defendants were the sureties on his bond as such contractor and the administrator of his estate.

From the circuit court of Lafayette county. Hon. Z. M. Stephens, Judge. Bogard and another, appellees, were the plaintiffs in the ■court below; the railroad company, appellant, was defendant there. The suit was for damages to live stock shipped by the plaintiffs over defendant’s road from Oxford, Miss., to St. Louis, Mo.

From the chancery court of Sharkey county. Hon. William. C. Martin, Chancellor. Alberta C. Waddill and others, appellees, were the complainants in the court below; Sarah L. Hall and others, appellants, were defendants there. The purpose of the suit was to cancel a deed as a cloud on complainants’ title. The main fact upon which the cause depended is fully stated in the opinion of the court.

. From the chancery court, second district, of Perry county. Hon. Nathan C. Hill, Chancellor. The appellant, McInnis, was the complainant in the court below, and the appellees, Wiscassett Mills and others, were defendants there. The court below denied the complainant all relief, dismissing his bill, and he appealed to the supreme court.

From the circuit court of Claiborne c&unty. Hon. William K. McLaurin, Judge. Held: that, if the contract was made to secure the location of the road at a place where it would not be to the greatest benefit to the stockholders of the road, then it was in the nature of a bribe, and cannot be enforced; or, if the place where the parties agreed the road should be located, which was afterwards done, was the route best…

From the chancery court of Lafayette county. Hon. James C. Longstreet, Chancellor. Fargason and others, appellants, were the complainants in the court below; the Oxford Mercantile Company and others, appellees, were defendants there.

From the circuit court of Jackson county. Hon. Tiiaddeus A. Wood, Judge. Dantzler Lumber Company and others, appellees, were plaintiffs in the court below. Christian & Craft Co., appellant, was defendant there. The facts sufficiently appear from the’ opinion of the court.

From the chancery court of Jefferson county. Hon. William C. Martin, Chancellor.

From the chancery court of Amite county.' Hon. Claude Pintarl, Chancellor. Atkinson and another, appellants, were the complainants, and Felder and wife, appellees, defendants in the court below. The object of the suit was to foreclose a mortgage on the land of Mrs. Felder, given to secure the joint, note of the appellees. It was shown by way of defense that at the time of the execution of the note and mortgage Mrs. Felder was insane.

From the circuit court of Warren county. Hon. Oliver W. Catohings, Special Judge. Lawrence, the appellee, was plaintiff, and the railroad com-, pany, appellant, defendant, in the court below. ■ The suit was for damages because of the breach of two contracts for the safe transportation of horses from Shreveport, Louisiana, to Vicksburg, Mississippi. On the first shipment two horses were killed and the first count of the declaration •demanded $100 because thereof.

From the circuit court of Warren county. Hon. Oliver W. Catchings, Special Judge. Held: that proof of these facts would support a verdict. Bradley v. West, 60 Mo., 59; 8 Am. & Eng. Ene. L. (1st ed.), 120, note. The action is merely possessory, and does not involve the title, and the judgment is no evidence in ejectment or trespass. Sjoears v. McKay, Walker (Miss.), 265; Poring v. Willis, i ITow. .(Miss.), 383.

From the circuit court of Warren county. Hon. William K. McLaurin, Judge. Rooks, the appellee, was the plaintiff and the railway company, appellant, was the defendant, in the court below. The plaintiff obtained judgment there, and the railway company appealed to the supreme court. The suit was an action to recover the value of two cows killed by drinking cotton seed oil, which had escaped from the company’s cars.

From the chancery court of Washington county. PIon. A. Me. Kimbrough, Chancellor. Hawkins, the appellant, was the complainant, and Mangum, the appellee, was defendant in the court below. The object of the suit was to cancel a tax title to the land in suit, which tax title was based on the assessment of 1889, made under the act of 1888. Defendant’s demurrer to the bill of complaint was sustained in the court below and the bill dismissed.

From the circuit court of Warren county. Hon. Oliver W. Catohings, Special Judge. * Kuhn, the appellee, was the plaintiff and the railway company, the appellant, was the defendant in the court below. In March, 1899, an agent of the railway company made an affidavit against Kuhn, before a justice of the peace, charging him with wilfully jumping off of a moving train of cars.

From the circuit court of Washington county. Hon. Frank A. Montgomery, Judge. Wright, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company, appellant, was defendant there. The plaintiff obtained judgment in the court below, and defendant appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

From the chancery court of Warren county. Hon. William C. Martin, Chancellor. Sophia Peterson and others, appellees, were the complainants in the court below; Fultz and Purnell, appellants, were defendants there. The controversy grew out of this state of facts: A Mrs. Thompson and another formerly owned the land in controversy, it being situate on an island in the Mississippi river, known as Belk’s island.

From the chancery court of Noxubee county. Hon. Adam Byrd, Chaucellor. Irion, the appellant, was the complainant, and Mrs. Cole, appellee, whs defendant in the court below. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

From the circuit court of Harrison county. Hon. Thaddeus .A. Wood, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The act of cession, approved November 15, 1858, is as follows: “AN ACT to cede to the United States jurisdiction over a certain island in the Gulf of Mexico, on the coast of Mississippi, known as Ship Island. “Section 1.

From the circuit court of Warren county. Hon. Patrick Henry, Judge. Smith, the appellee, was the plaintiff, and the transportation company, a corporation, the appellant, was the defendant in the court below. The suit was for personal injuries. The plaintiff was a deck hand on a steamboat of defendant’s, navigating the Yazoo river. Sunday, February 12, 1899, was the coldest day ever known in Mississippi.

From the circuit court of Madison county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Pool, the appellee, was the plaintiff, and the Canton Cotton Warehouse Co., the appellant, was the defendant in the court below. The action was for personal injuries received by the plaintiff, resulting from jumping out of a house because of his having been frightened by the defendant’s servants. The defendant was engaged in manufacturing ice. Its plant was being operated at night, lighted with electricity.

From the circuit court of Washington county. Hon. Frank A. Montgomery, Judge. Mrs. Enslie, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; the insurance company, the appellant, was defendant there. .Mrs. Enslie, a resident of this state, was indebted to a building and loan- association domiciled in Georgia. She owned a house and lot in Greenville, Mississippi, upon which the build.ing and loan association had a mortgage.

From the circuit court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Humphries, district attorney, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; Cole, auditor of public accounts, appellant, was defendant there. The action was a mandamus proceeding. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. The claim of the appellee is entirely too narrow and technical.

From the circuit court of Warren county. Hon. W. K. McLaurin, Judge. The Port Gibson Brick and Manufacturing Company, appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; one Conaghan and C. J. Miller, the appellant, were defendants there, the appellant being-a garnishee. The opinion states the facts in the case.

From the chancery court of Warren county. Hon. William C. Martin, Chancellor. Mrs. White, the appellant, was the complainant, and Lefoldt, the appellee, was defendant in the court below.

From the circuit court of Warren county. Hon. Patrick Henry, Judge. Kirby, the appellant, was indicted for murder, the indictment against him being' statutory in form. It was found at the December term of the court, 1899, and was drawn by the Hon. Patrick Henry, then district attorney of the circuit court district embracing Warren county. The case came on for trial at the March term of the court, 1900.

From the circuit court of Warren county. Hon. William K. McLaurin, Judge. King, administrator, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Wooldridge, the appellee, was defendant there. The case arose thus. Polly King, the appellant’s intestate, recovered a judgment against the Vicksburg Grocery Co. The grocery company obtained a judgment against Brennan and others.

From the circuit court of Lauderdale county. Hon. Green B. Huddleston, Judge. Coleman, the appellee, was the plaintiff, and the railway-company, the appellant, was the defendant in the court below. The plaintiff, Coleman, sued the railroad company for §600, damages for losses averred to have been suffered by him at various times on divers shipments of cattle, and which losses were charged to have resulted from the negligence of the carrier’s servants.

<p>From the circuit court of Warren county.</p> <p>Hon. Patrick Henry, Judge.</p> <p>Stewart, the appellee, was plaintiff, and Feld & Co., the appellants, defendants in the court below. Replevin to recover personal property. Defendants had sold and delivered the property in question to plaintiff’s vendor, and taken from her a promissory note for the purchase money, which contained no stipulation that title was to be reserved in them until payment was made. They sought to prove a parol understanding and agreement that the title was to be so reserved, but the court .below excluded the testimony, and gave judgment for the plaintiff, from which defendants appealed to the supreme court.</p> <p>The defendants had an undoubted right to sell the property in controversy to Miss Miller upon the condition that the title should remain in them until the purchase price was paid, and if such sale was made, then no title would vest in her until payment had been made. Ketchurn da Cummings v. Brennan, 53 Miss., 596; Dukev. Shackleford, 56 11)., 552; JDederick v. Wolfe, 68 lb., 500; Tufts v. Stone, 70 lb., 54; Journey v. Priestly, lb., 584. The note did not show on its face that it was given for the-property in question, and if the transaction it represented could be opened for that purpose, it would seem that the agreement as to title might also be shown. Volking v. Iluckaby, 67 Miss., 206.</p> <p>The case of MiTburn Cin da Machine Co. v. Ping old, 19 So. Rep., 670, is decisive- of the question under consideration. The case of Volking v. Iluckaby, 67 Miss., 206, relied on by appellants, is without application. It involved merely the question of whether or not a sale had been in fact made by Volking to Huckaby.</p>

From the circuit court of Lincoln county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Washington, the appellant, was defendant in the court below. He was indicted for an assault and battery with intent to kill and murder. The facts upon which the decision rests are fully stated in the opinion of the court. The defendant was convicted in the court below and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of five years. From the conviction and sentence he appealed to the supreme court.

From the circuit court of Warren county. Hon. Oliver W. Catchings, Special Judge. Louise Farquhar, and the other appellants, were the plaintiffs in the court below; the railway company was defendant there. One of the plaintiffs was the mother, and the others the brothers and sisters, the next of kin, of Edward Farquhar, deceased, for whose death the action was brought. The decedent was lulled at Vicksburg August 21, 1899.

From the circuit court of Bolivar county. Hon. F. A. Montgomey, Judge. Miller, the appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; the board of Mississippi levee commissioners, the appellee, was defendant there. The proceeding was a statutory one, under laws 1865, p. 51, as amended, laws 1884, p. 163. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>From the circuit court of Rankin county.</p> <p>PIon. John R. Enochs, Judge.</p> <p>Susan Williams, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court, below; the railway company, appellant, was defendant there. The suit was for the death of Overn Foreman, who was killed by the cars of the railway company in the city of Vicksburg, February 1, 1899. On the trial of the case in the court below, it appeared in evidence that the deceased was an illegitimate-son of the plaintiff. The defendant asked a peremptory instruction in its favor, which the court below refused to give. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in plaintiff’s favor for $1,500, from which the defendant appealed. The case was tried in. the court below before the decision of the supreme court in the case of Illinois, etc., R. R. Go. v. Johnson, "77' Miss., 727.</p> <p>It has been settled in this state that a bastard is not within. Lord Campbell’s act or our statute (laws 1898), of which Lord Campbell’s act is the prototype. Illinois, etc., R. R. v. Johnson, 77 Miss., 727.</p> <p>It is useless to argue that question. The recent able opinion of this court settles it, and the scope of the opinion reaches this case. In fact, § 1549, code of 1892, much relied upon in the Johnson case, on the subject of distribution and descent of estates, does not in any sense provide for inheritance by the mother from her bastard child, and the question of such inheritance is left by our statute exactly as it was at common law, and the mother does not inherit at- all, does not inherit anything, from her illegitimate offspring. To permit such an inheritance would be contrary to the policy of the law. It would be counter to the policy of even §1549, code, for it would reward the guilty adulteress, when the statute intended only to remove an apparent, probably a real, hardship from the innocent child. The peremptory instruction asked should have been given, upon the idea that the law was just as this court has announced it to be in the Johnson case.</p> <p>Did the legislature, when it inserted in our statute the words, “or mother,” mean mother in that restricted sense which limited it to legitimate mothers, or did it mean to use the word in that broad sense which includes both the natural and the legitimate mother ? The answer to the question involves a settlement of the proposition involved in the instruction under consideration. It does not depend upon a question of inheritance or of inheritable blood. There .is nothing in the act of 1898, or in any of its prototypes, all the way back to Lord Campbell’s act, which makes the right to sue in such cases inheritable. See opinion in Illinois, etc., R. R. Go. v. Johnson, 77 Miss., 727, where, speaking of the statute of descent and distribution, it is said, £ £ there is nothing in the statute of descent and distribution making any right of action inheritable either by legitimates or illegitimates, ’ ’ and again, speaking of Lord Campbell’s act and of the act of 1898, it is said, “ neither act deals with inheritance nor makes any mention of illegitimates. ’ ’</p> <p>WRat was the status of a bastard at common law? The answer is this: “The same as every other man, exceptaste his right of inheritance.” Blackstone’s Com., book 1, *459; 4 Kent’s Com., *214.</p> <p>The word ‘1 mother ’ ’ had at common law exactly the same meaning when applied to the mother of a bastard as it had when applied to the mother of a legitimate child, except as to. inheritance alone. If the common law had been. that a ‘£ mother ’ ’ might sue for the death of her child, it would have meant that the mother of a bastard could sue, when it is admitted there is no question of inheritance involved in the right to sue.</p> <p>The legislature of this state has never said that only the legitimate mother may sue, but has said that the “mother” may sue. And to hold that the word, “mother,” used in the act of 1898, p. 82, shall, under the common law and the statutory law, be construed to mean “legitimate mother,” would, beyond all question, be to make innovation on the common law by judicial legislation.</p> <p>In the Johnson case the question was as to the right of a bastard half-sister to sue for the death of a bastard half-sister,' and this court held that she did not have the right. There is a vast difference between that case and the one at bar.</p> <p>1. The right to sue in that case was claimed to be based upon the right of inheritance.</p> <p>2. There was no right of inheritance between bastards under the common law.</p> <p>3. The statute of descent and distribution does not give the right of inheritance to a bastard from his brothers and sisters, and does not recognize the bastard as having a brother or sister, while it does recognize him as having a mother. The language is peculiar and is as follows: “Shall inherit from their mother and from her other children.” Note the language. It does not say, from their brothers and sisters, but speaks of them as the bastard’s mother’s other children.</p> <p>Sophronia Johnson’s right to sue depended, not upon her right of inheritance, but whether she was included in any class mentioned in the act of 1898 upon whom the right to sue was thereby bestowed; and, since our statute of descent and distribution does not recognize a bastard as having either brother or sister, the decision of the court in that case, in the absence of any other statute recognizing such relationship, would be correct.</p> <p>As to the right of the mother to sue for the death of her illegitimate child, see vol. 8 (2d ed.), Am. & Eng. Ene. L. f 895 (2), and Marshall v. Wdhash, etc., JR. JR. Go., 120 Mo., 275.</p> <p>There, are a few decisions of some courts, and perhaps some text writers, cited as authority for the opposite view of this question, but, upon a careful and studious investigation, they will be found, no doubt, to be under peculiar statutes, or certainly not in accord with the law as it exists to-day in this state.</p> <p>This suit was brought under the act of 1898 (laws 1898, p„ 82), which is the law of this state. Lord Campbell’s act is-not law here. The two acts are not identical, but are dissimilar in several respects. If the British courts have violated a rule of the common law in expounding Lord Campbell’s act, it is surely no reason why our court should do so in expounding our act.</p> <p>Defendant’s proposition amounts to this: “Yes, we negligently killed the boy, but what of it ? He was a bastard, and the act of 1898 only intended to protect the lives of children born in lawful wedlock.” What a defense! The statute says, £ ‘ whenever the death of any person shall be caused, ’ ’ etc. Do the words, “any person,” include an illegitimate? That-is the only question; for, if the words, “any person,” include a bastard, his' mother is authorized to sue. Hardly can any man say that the legislature would be mindful of the lives of legitimate children and heartlessly refuse to care for the lives-of illegitimates. ! ‘Any person ’ ’ includes an illegitimate, unless-an illegitimate is not, in law, regarded as a person. No court on earth ever held that an illegitimate is not a person. They are held not to be the children of anybody for purposes of inheritance and succession; nothing more. 1 Blackstone, 459;. 2 Kent, 214.</p> <p>I reject Black’s Law and Practice on this question, because the author is either partial and unfair or he has given ’ the question no investigation. He cites 46 Fed. Rep. for a proposition that the court expressly said was not properly before it, and does not cite the decision of the supreme court of Missouri against the proposition when the same case was before that court. The Missouri case was decided long before Black’s publication. Marshall v. Wabash By. Co., 120 Mo., 275.</p>

From the chancery court of Bolivar county. Hon. A. MoC. Kimbrough, Chancellor. Ann T. Sheppard, the appellee, was the -complainant in the court below; the Equitable Securities Company and another, the appellants, were defendants there. From a decree of the court below in complainant’s favor the defendants appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Hon. A. MoC. Kimbrough, Chancellor. From the chancery court of Sunflower county. The appellant, Burroughs, was complainant, and the appellees, Jones and another, were defendants in the court below. The opinion states the case. We do not think it can be seriously urged that our injunction •should be dissolved and our bill dismissed because A. C. Craig is not made a party defendant to this bill. According to its allegations, Craig has no interest whatever in this suit.

From the circuit court of Issaquena county. Hon. William K. McLaurin, Judge. Mrs. Willis, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court, below; Smith, the appellant, was defendant there. From a. judgment in plaintiff’s favor, the defendant appealed to the supreme court. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. It cannot be said the law is unconstitutional, because the constitution establishes the district, and imposes the tax.

From the circuit court of Warren county. Hon. William K. McLaurin, Judge. Gregory, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; Reid, the appellant, and one Gray and wife were defendants there. The suit was to enforce a mechanic’s lien.

From the circuit court of Neshoba county. Hon. Green B. Huddleston, Judge. Held: beginning on the fourth Monday of November, 1899. The judge did not, in the call, place any limitation on the length of the term. The appellant was indicted during the first week of the special term; his case, however, was not called for trial until Monday of the second week thereof, when the trial was begun.

From the circuit court of DeSoto county. Hon. Z. M. Stephens, Judge. Whitley, the appellant, was indicted and convicted of murder in the court below, and appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The first confession should not have been admitted in evidence, because it was extorted by threats.

From the chancery court of Washington county. Hon. A. MoC. Kimbrough, Chancellor. The appellees, Gumble & Co., were complainants, and the appellant, House, defendant in the court below.

From the chancery court of Leflore county. Hon. A. MoC. Kimbrough, Chancellor. Mrs. Jones, appellant, was the complainant and Mrs. Somerville, appellee, was defendant in the court below. From a decree dismissing her bill the complainant appealed to the supreme court. The opinion of the court fully states the facts. Under the laws of this state, and most of the other states, a husband cannot disinherit his wife, either directly or indirectly.

From the chancery court of Monroe county. Hon. Henry L. Muldrow, Chancellor. The Allen-West Commission Company, appellee, was the-complainant in the court below; Dollar and the county of Monroe, appellants, were defendants there.

From the chancery court of Bolivar county. Hon. A. Me. Kimbrough, Chancellor. Kyle, the appellee, was the complainant in the court below; Kendrick and others were' defendants there. The suit was instituted December 26, 1896, and the purpose was to enforce a purchase money lien on the land involved.

From the circuit court of Tunica county. Hon. Frank E. Larkin, Judge. Tate and another, appellees, were the plaintiffs in the court below; Tunica county was defendant there. The facts in reference to the additional. assessment involved are stated in the opinion of the court. The board of supervisors approved the assessment over the objection of appellees, who thereupon appealed to the circuit court.

From the circuit court of Tunica county. Hon. Frank E. Larkin, Judge. Edward Gilbert, the appellant, was indicted for the murder of one Sandy Neill, was tried and convicted, in the court below, of manslaughter, and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of ten years, from which conviction and sentence he appealed to the supreme court.

From the circuit court of Tallahatchie county. Hon. Frank E. Larkin, Judge. Roach, the appellant, was plaintiff in the court below, Tallahatchie county was defendant there. Held: in two cases at least, that the statute applies to proceedings in justice of the peace courts, where the proceeding sought to be had was only provided in the chapter on circuit courts, as in the present case. Betts v. Baxter, 58 Miss., 329; Smith v. Newton, 62 Miss., 230.

From the circuit court of Tate county. Hon. Z. M. Stephens, Judge. Horn and another, the appellees, were the plaintiffs and Mc-Kinnon, the appellant, was the defendant in the court below. From a judgment in plaintiff’s favor the defendant appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The appeal should have been dismissed. Code 1892, § 2417 Baird v. Bar dwell, 60 Miss., 164; 2 Ene. P. & P., 363 et seq.\. code 1892, § 940.

From the circuit court, first district, of Hinds county. IIon. Robert Powell, Judge. Rainey, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Hinds county was defendant there. Held: .■as in this state, that counties were not liable at common law in •such cases. Cases supra. So far as our examination has gone, and we think it has been thorough, we find no case holding any other view.

From the chancery court of Monroe county. Hon. Henry L. Muldrow, Chancellor. The appellee, Airs. Peavy, was complainant and the appellant, Mrs. Hendricks, was defendant in the court below. The opinion states the case. The only question for the consideration of the court is the-action of the .chancellor in overruling the special demurrer of the appellant.

From the circuit court of Montgomery county. Hon. William F. Stevens, Judge. Hays, the appellant, was the plaintiff and the railway company, appellee, was the defendant in the court below. The suit was for the value of a mule, belonging to plaintiff, killed on the railroad track by a train of defendant. On the trial testimony showing the killing of the mule by appellant’s train was made, and appellee rested his case.

From the chancery court of Lauderdale county. Hon. Nathan C. Hill, Chancellor. Lutz, the appellee, was the complainant in the court below;, the original defendant there was the Southern Home Building & Loan Association of Georgia, a corporation of that state. Some time after the beginning of the suit the building and loan association was placed in the hands of a receiver, by order of a. federal court in the state of Georgia, in which state the association was domiciled..

From the circuit court, second district, of Yalobusha county. Hon. Z. M. Stephens, Judge. Mrs. McLeod, the widow, and Alexander R. McLeod, the son of Rufus McLeod, deceased, the appellees, were the plaintiffs in- the court below; the railroad company was defendant there. The suit was for the death of Rufus McLeod. From a judgment for $1,000 in plaintiffs’ favor, the defendant appealed to the supreme court. The opinion of. the court fully states the facts.

From the chancery court of Tate county. Hon. James C. Longstreet, Chancellor. Rouss, the appellee, was complainant in the court below; Perkins and others were defendants there. From a decree in ■complainant’s favor, adjudging defendants liable personally for the debt due complainant, defendants appealed to the supreme ■court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

From the circuit court of Tippah county. Hon. Z. M. Stephens, Judge.

From the circuit court of Sunflower county. Hon. Frank E. Larkin, Judge. Carter, the appellant, was indicted for grand larceny, tried and convicted in the court below, and sentenced to the penitentiary. From the conviction and sentence he appealed to the supreme court. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

From the chancery court of Oktibbeha county. Hon. Henry-L. Muldrow, Chancellor. Held: under a similar statute, not to be a charitable society. Bangor v. Masonic Lodge, 40 Am. Rep., 369. There are in these cases three distinct requirements: Ownership, exclusive use and nonprofit.

From the circuit court of Marshall comity. Hon. S. M. Stephens, Judge. Wilkerson, appellant, was indicted, tried, and convicted in the court below and sentenced to the penitentiary. He appealed to the supreme court. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

From the circuit court of Pike county. Hon. Jefferson Truly, Judge. William and Jackson Dean, appellants, were indicted, tried, and convicted of crime in the court below, and appealed to the supreme court. The opinion of the court fully states the case.

From the chancery court of Harrison county. Hon. Nathan C. Hill, Chancellor. Held: and so rendered a decree, that the proper amount of damages was five percentum on the amount of debt secured by the deed of trust and that the larger amount suffered and proved by the appellant could not be considered or recovered.

From the circuit court of Marshall county. Hon. Z. M. Stephens, Judge. Snyder, the appellant, was indicted, and convicted in the-court below, for selling intoxicants. He appealed to the supreme court. The opinion states the facts.

From the circuit court of Union county. Hon. Z. M. Stephens, Judge. James McDonald, the appellant, was indicted by the grand jury of Benton county for the murder of .William Henry Harrison. He applied to the circuit court of that county for a change of venue, and the application was granted, the case being transferred for trial to the circuit court of Union county..

From the circuit court of Attala county. Hon. William F. Steyens, Judge. Fletcher, guardian, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; the Supreme Lodge Knights of Honor, appellant, was defendant there. The plaintiff recovered in the court below, the judgment being rendered March 10, 1900, and it remained unpaid and unappealed from until September 25, 1900, when this appeal with supersedeas was sued out.

From the circuit court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Kobert Powell, Judge. Wilkinson, the appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; the Light, Heat and Water Company, appellee, was defendant there. Wilkinson was the owner of a residence in the city of Jackson, near which were two hydrants. These hydrants the defendant had contracted with the city to keep supplied with water for the use of the fire department at a designated pressure.

From the chancery court of Montgomery county. Hon. James C. Longstreet, Chancellor. Wilkins, the appellee, was the complainant in the court below; Mrs. Rose and the supreme lodge of the Knights of Honor, appellants, were defendants there. The opinion of the court states the facts. The parties to the assignment attempted to do indirectly that which they could not do directly.

From the circuit court, first district, of Panola county. Hon. Z. M. Stephens, Judge. Crockett, the appellee was the plaintiff in the court below; “the railroad company, appellant, was defendant there. The facts are embodied in the syllabus. The plaintiff recovered a judgment for $7,500 in the court below as damages for his injuries — the loss of a foot — -and the defendant appealed to the supreme court.

From the circuit court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Hasie, the appellant, was the plaintiff and the railway company the defendant in the court below. From a judgment in ffavor of defendant the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated and instructions sufficiently presented in the opinion of the court.

From the chancery court of Warren county. Hon. William C. Martin, .Chancellor. The North American Trust Company, the appellant, was the complainant in the court below; Frank B. Lanier, his wife, Mary Emma, and others, appellees, were defendants there. The court below decreed in defendants’ favor, and the complainant appealed to the supreme court. ' The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. 1.

From the circuit court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Mrs. Barrett, the appellee, was the plaintiff and the railway company, appellant, was defendant in the court below. From a judgment in plaintiff’s favor the defendant appealed to the supreme court. The facts are sufficiently indicated by the briefs of counsel and the opinion of the court.

From the chancery court, second district, of Hinds county. Hon. H. C. Conn, Chancellor. The sewing machine company, appellee, was the complainant, and Chapman, the appellant, the defendant in the court below. On a previous appeal two decisions were rendered in this case, which are reported in 76 Miss., 821, and 77 II., 890.

From the chancery court of Washington county. Hon. A. Mo. Kimbrough, Chancellor. Vincent Grego, the appellee, was the complainant and Mary Grego, the appellant, was defendant in the court below. By his bill of complaint Vincent sought a divorce from his wife, Mary, charging her with desertion and cruel and inhuman treatment.

From the circuit court of Sunflower county. Hon. Frank A. Montgomery, Judge. Murrell, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; the railway company, the appellant, was defendant there. From a judgment in plaintiff’s favor, the railway company appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The question of liability depends entirely upon the construction to be given to § 3561, code of 1892.

Fkom the circuit court of Alcorn county. Hon. Eugene O. Sykes, Judge. The appellant, Bowen Klyce, was indicted for the murder of one Elmer McAfee; was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of twenty-five years, from which he appealed to the supreme court. The evidence was conflicting as to who was the aggressor in the fight. The other facts .are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

From the chancery court of Sunflower county. Hon. A. Me. Kimbrough, Chancellor. Bartholomew McNamara, guardian of F. X. Leroy McNamara, the appellee, was the complainant in the court below; Baird and others, the appellants, were defendants there. The suit was once before in the supreme court, and is reported, although the docket styles are not identical. McNamara v. Baird, 72 Miss., 89.

From the circuit court of Alcorn county. Hon. Eugene O. Sykes, Judge. Glover and another, the appellees, were plaintiffs in the court below; the railroad company, the appellant, was defendant there. The defendant sued, under code 1892, § 3561, for the statutory penalty imposed upon railroads for failure to'construct or maintain necessary or proper cattle guards and stock gaps where their tracks pass through inclosed land.

From the circuit court of Harrson county. Hon. Thaddeus A. Wood, Judge. ■ The state, suing on the relation of Gleason, appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; Bousquet, appellant, was defendant there. The suit was a quo warranto proceeding to determine which one of the parties was police justice of the city of Biloxi. .

From the circuit court of Harrison county. Hon. Thaddeus A. Wood, Judge. The state, on the relation of Lowery, appellee, was the plaintiff, and Ott, appellant, was the defendant in the court below. The suit was a quo warranto proceeding instituted to settle between the parties the question which one of them was the tax collector of the city of Biloxi.

From the circuit court of Warren county. Hon. Patrick Henry, Judge. 'Lamkin and another, the appellees, were the plaintiffs in the court below; the New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad Co. and the Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co., the appellants, were defendants there. The appellees placed eleven hundred and six bales of cotton in the hands of the Alabama. & Vicksburg Railway Co., at Vicksburg, for shipment to Havre, France.

From the circuit court of Jackson county. Hon. Thaddeus A. Wood, Judge. .The suit was an action of trespass to land by the appellants, Catchot and others, plaintiffs in the court below, against the appellees, the town of Ocean Springs and one Jerry O’Keefe, defendants. The property involved is a small piece of land and a dilapidated wharf and oyster shed, within the town, but at the water’s edge, on the Gulf of Mexico.

From the chancery court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Henry C. Conn, Chancellor. Murphy, the appellee, was complainant and Virden and wife, appellants, were defendants in the court below. The object of the suit was to vacate as fraudulent a conveyance of property, real and personal, executed by appellant, George S. Virden, to his wife, Ellen.

From the circuit court, second district, of Marion county. Hon. Thaddeus A. Wood, Judge. Blodgett and another, appellants, were the plaintiffs in the court below, Seals, appellee, was defendant there. The action was replevin for logs. A large part of there were cut by defendant’s vendor from lands belonging to the Alcorn Agricultural and Mechanical College, before plaintiff purchased it from the college authorities.

From the circuit court of Attala county. Hon. William F. Stevens, Judge. Helen Quinn and another, were plaintiffs, and the Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias of the World was defendant in the court below. Frank Quinn, deceased, was in his lifetime a member of the endowment rank of the Knights of Pythias, and as such obtained an insurance policy or benefit certificate in the order for $3,000, payable to his wife and child.

From the circuit court of Lafayette county. Hon. Z. M. Stephens, Judge. . Adams, state revenue agent, appellant, was the plaintiff, and the Bank of Oxford, appellee, was defendant, in the court below. The act of 1890 (p. 9) provides that cities and towns are prohibited from levying or collecting any tax on banks or solvent credits greater than seventy-five per centum of the state tax thereon.

From the circuit court, first district, of' Hinds county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. The city of Jackson, appellee, was the plaintiff, and Millsaps and others, appellants, were defendants there. Held: since two of the three executors and trustees lived in Jackson, that the city could recover municipal taxes on two-thirds of the property, and judgment was rendered accordingly, from which the defendants appealed to the supreme court.

From the chancery court of Warren county. Hon. William C. Martin, Chancellor. Reicl and another, appellants, were complainants in the court below; Trowbridge and others were defendants there. The city of Vicksburg, in the early part of May, 1899,- made a contract with the Vicksburg Railroad, Power & Manufacturing Company for lighting the streets of the city by electricity.

From the chancery court, second district, of Perry county. Hon. Nathan C. Hill, Chancellor. The word ‘ ‘ license, ’ ’ used in the statute, implies a right, a privilege, exceptional and exclusive to its possessor — a privilege guarded and protected by law.

From the circuit court of Marshall county. Hon. Z. M. Stephens, Judge. The appellants were defendants in the court below, and the appellee was plaintiff there. W. N. Liles and N. W. Cawthorn each owned a water mill on Coldwater creek, in Marshall county, that of the former being about one mile the higher up stream.

From the circuit court of Monroe county. Hon. Eugene O. Sykes, Judge. The opinion states the facts. The constitutions'of 1832 (art. 4, sec. 20), 1869 (art. 6, sec. 20) and 1890 (sec. 170), give the board of supervisors full jurisdiction over roads, ferries and bridges. This case is settled in its material features by the decisions in the cases of Botenberry v. Yalobusha County, 67 Miss., 470; Banter.

From the circuit court of Union county. Hon. Z. M. Stephens, Judge. The appellant, Coker, administrator, was plaintiff, and the appellee, Britt, defendant in the court below. The opinion states the case.

From the chancery court of Harrison county. Hon. Nathan C. Hill, Chancellor. The appellee, Barber, was complainant and the appellant, Sintes, defendant in the court below. The opinion sufficiently states the facts of the case. It is the fault of the appellee that he had no bill of exception's in the action of ejectment, and there is no reason why he could not have availed in that action, by way of defense, of all the matters set up in his bill.

From the chancery court of Lincoln county. Hon. Henry C. Conn, Chancellor. Hartman, the appellee, was complainant, and Thayer, the appellant, was defendant in the court below. Held: and six hundred feet from the courthouse site. The view of both places from the Abrams store building is and was obstructed by houses, all these points being in a thickly built up and populous city. An execution sale of lands not made at the courthouse is void. Koch v. Bridges, 45 Miss., 247.

From the chancery court of Harrison county. Hon. Nathan C. Hill, Chancellor. Hardy and others, the appellees, were complainants in the court below; McCaughan and another, the appellants, were defendants there. The object of the suit was to reform a deed made by defendants to Mrs. H. L. Hardy, deceased, in her lifetime. Complainants were the heirs at law of the decedent.

From the circuit court of Hancock county. Hon. Thaddeus A. Wood, Judge. Mrs. Stewart, the appellee, was the plaintiff, and the railroad company was defendant in the court below. The plaintiff shipped a car load of furniture and household effects, including several oil portraits, from Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, to New Orleans, Louisiana.

From tbe chancery court of Copiah county. Hon. Henry C. Conn, Chancellor: The Hazlehurst Oil Mill & Fertilizer Company, the appellee, was the complainant in the court below, and Harris, the appellant, was defendant there. The complainant had a judgment against defendant, and defendant had a judgment against complainant. The latter was the smaller of the two.

From the circuit court, first district, of Panola county. Hon. Z. M. Stephens, Judge. Appeal by Ouidas from a conviction of murder; the opinion of the court states the case. The action of the court in suspending the hearing of this cause, and taking up and hearing to a conclusion another cause in the presence of the jury, was manifest error.

From the circuit court of Adams county. Hon. Jefferson Truly, Judge. Johnson, appellant, having been indicted and convicted of murder, appealed to the supreme court. The opinion states the case.

From the circuit court of Itawamba county. Hon. Eugene O. Sykes, Judge. Holt, the appellant, was convicted of murder. After the conviction he applied to the circuit judge for a writ of error coram nobis, the facts in respect to which are stated in the opinion of the court delivered by Judge Calhoon. The*writ being denied, appellant presented two appeals to the supreme court, one from the denial of said writ of error and the other from the conviction of murder.

From the circuit court of Harrison county. Hon. Thaddeus A. Wood, Judge. Brown, the appellant, was indicted for the murder of one Harden, convicted of manslaughter, and appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The admission of the testimony of witnesses, Seal and Duck-worth, over appellant’s objection, was error.

From the circuit court of Jones county. Hon. John R. Enochs, Judge. Gardner, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below, and the railroad company, the appellee, was defendant there. The hardware, damage to which was sued for, was shipped to appellant at Laurel, Mississippi, from Mobile, Alabama. When the car was opened at Laurel it was found that the goods (stoves) were badly rusted, and when moved considerable quantities of water fell from them.

From the circuit court of Montgomery county. Hon. William F. Stevens, Judge. Caffey, appellant, was convicted of murder and acquitted on the ground of insanity, the jury certifying in their verdict that the defendant was still insane and dangerous. The court below sentenced him to the lunatic asylum, under code 1892, § 1468. The defendant appealed to the supreme court. The opinion states the case.

From an order made in vacation by Hon. James C. Longstreet, Chancellor. Held: would be invalid. The supersedeas was granted, and the commissioners stayed. The appellants then applied to. the chancellor and obtained an appeal to the supreme court from the order granting the writ of supersedeas. Ferguson v. Monroe County, 71 Miss., 532, is decisive of this case in appellants’ favor.

Prom the chancery court, second district, of Coahoma county. Hon. A. Mo. Kimbrough, Chancellor. . Puckett and others, appellees, were the complainants and Wildberger and others, appellants, defendants in the court below. The object of the suit was to cancel a cloud on complainants’ title to lands. The bill set out the deed under which defendants claimed the lands. It was demurred to on the ground that the invalidity of said deed was not sufficiently shown.

From the circuit court of Jones county. Hon. John K. Enochs, Judge. White, the appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; Bonner, the appellant, ivas defendant there. The opinion fully states the case. The court below erred in granting a peremptory instruction for the plaintiff as for want of a counter affidavit, because one was on file. It is true the counter affidavit was informal, but it was sufficient.

From the chancery court of Harrison county. Hon. Nathan C. Hill, Chancellor. Borries, the appellant, was complainant and the city of Biloxi was defendant in the court below. The municipal authorities passed an ordinance assuming to impose a privilege tax on the business of meat markets in said city greater in amount than fifty per centum of the state privilege tax.

From the circuit court, second district, of Yalobusha county. Hon. Z. M. Stephens, Judge. Harris and another, appellants, were prosecuted for and convicted of a violation of an ordinance of the city of Water Valley, the appellee. The prosecution was begun before the police justice of said city, appealed thence to the circuit court, and, upon conviction in the circuit court, the appellants appealed to the supreme court. The opinion otherwise states the case.

From the circuit court of Tate county. Hon. Perrin H. Lowrey, Judge. Clue, the appellant, was indicted, tried and convicted of-arson, and appealed to the supreme court. The opinion states the case. The indictment in this case charges two separate and distinct offenses in one count; first, the burning of the cotton house of R. B. Carter, and, second, the burning of the three bales of cotton of Carter and Lee. This case is not analagous to Avant v. State, 71 Miss., 78.

From the circuit court, first district, of Chickasaw county. Hon. Eugene O. Sxices, Judge. Johns, the appellant, was defendant in the court below, and appealed to the supreme court from a judgment convicting him of unlawfully selling whisky. The opinion states the case. The verdict is too uncertain upon which to predicate á conviction. The indictment charged appellant with unlawfully selling whisky on October 2, 1899, in the first district of Chickasaw county.

From the circuit court of Lincoln county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Cassedy, the appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; the Cumberland Telephone and Telegraph Company was defendant there. The action was trespass for cutting shade trees on the iine between the sidewalk and the street opposite plaintiff’s lots in the city of Brookhaven. The defendant had applied to the municipal authorities of the city for, and had obtained their authority to cut the trees.

From the chancery court of Leflore county. Hon. A. Mo. Kimbrough, Chancellor. Leflore county, appellee, was complainant, and Allen and others, appellants, were defendants in the court below. One Allen, appellants’ ancester, was the county treasurer of Leflore county. He became short in his accounts something over $4,000, and was threatened with indictment for embezzlement.

From the circuit court of Lowndes county. Hon. Eugene O. Sykes, Judge. Wirt Adams, state revenue agent, the appellant, acting under a statute, caused the assessor of Lowndes county to assess the capital stock of the Tombigbee Mills, the appellee, for taxation for the years 1888 to 1897, inclusive. The board of supervisors refused to confirm the assessment, and the state revenue agent appealed to the circuit court.

From the circuit court of Attala county. Hon. W. F. Steyens, Judge. Baines, the appellee, was the petitioner or plaintiff in the court below; Mrs. Hibbette and others were defendants there. The opinion states the facts of the case, which was a proceeding by habeas corpus for the custody of petitioner’s children. Where are the happiness and welfare of the children ?

From the chancery court, first district, of Hinds county. . Hon. Henry C. Conn, Chancellor. Warren county and another, appellants, were complainants in the court below, Nall, state land commissioner, was defendant there. The opinion fully states the case. It is competent for the legislature to grant swamp lands to the different counties in the state and empower them to sell the lands and devote the proceeds to general county purposes.

From the chancery court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Henrt C. Conn, Chancellor. The Mississippi Railroad Commission, appellant, was the complainant in the court below; the railroad company, appellee, was defendant there. From a decree of the court below, dissolving the preliminary injunction, which had been obtained by the Commission, the complainant appealed to the supreme court. The opinion states the case.

From the chancery court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Henry C. Conn, Chancellor. Dwyer, appellee, was complainant in the court below; Mrs. Virden and her husband, appellants, were defendants there. From a decree of the chancery court in complainant’s favor the defendants appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

From the circuit court of Lincoln county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Hoskins, appellant, was plaintiff in the court below, and the railroad company, appellee, was defendant there. The action was in ejectment. The defendant claimed the land under a tax title, made in 1885 for the taxes of 1884, and showed full three years’ actual adverse possession- of the premises thereunder before the beginning of the suit.

From the circuit court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Held: with the leading authorities of the United States, that anything which constitutes a burden upon the title is such an incumbrance upon the homestead as is included in our statutory restrictions upon the actions of the husband alone in dealing with the homestead. McKenzie v. Shows, 70 Miss., 388.

From the circuit court of Harrison county. Hon. Thaddeus A. Wood, Judge. The Stillwell Bierce & Smith Vaile Company, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; the Biloxi Canning Company, appellee, was defendant there. The suit was for the recovery of the purchase money of an ice manufacturing plant, and the nature of the controversies is apparent from the opinion of the court.

From the circuit court of Copiah county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Arnola, the appellee, was plaintiff, and the railroad company, the appellant, defendant in the court below. From a judgment in plaintiff’s favor, the defendant appealed to the supreme court. The opinion states the case.

From the chancery court of Sharkey county. Hon. William C. Martin, Chancellor. The railroad company, the appellant, was complainant,, and West, the appellee, defendant in the court below.

Prom the circuit court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Held: however, that when the business of the company which is wholly within the state is but a mere incident to its.interstate business, such fact would furnish any obstacle to the valid taxation by the state of the business of the company which is entirely local.

From the circuit court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. The appellants, Woodberry and others, were plaintiffs in the court below; McClurg, attorney-general, the appellee, was defendant there. The facts are stated in the opinion.

From the circuit court of Sunflower county. Hon. Frank E. Larkin, Judge. The guarantee company, appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; Pitts, the appellee, was defendant there. From a verdict, in pursuance of a peremptory instruction, and judgment in the court below in defendant’s favor, the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

From the circuit court of Tunica county. Hon. Frank E. Larkin, Judge. The opinion states the facts of the case. This case involves the single question, whether or not under the facts in proof the cotton, when it was burned, was in the possession of the defendant, or still in the plaintiff’s possession.

From the circuit court, first district, of Hinds county. ' Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. The state, on the relation of the district attorney, appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Cavett, appellee, was defendant there. Cavett was an alderman of the city of Jackson in the latter part of the year 1900, having been elected to fill an unexpired term.

From the chancery court of Leake county. Adam M. Byrd, Chancellor. This was a probate proceeding in the chancery court in which McGaughey and others, appellants, legatees under the will, objected to an allowance to Mrs. Eades, the appellee, the widow of the testator. The objection was disallowed by the court below, and the objectors appealed to the supreme court. The opinion states the facts of the case.

From the circuit court of Lowndes county. Hon. Eugene O. Sykes, Judge. Silverberg, the appellee, was indicted for perjury. He demurred to the indictment, and the same was sustained in the court below, and the state appealed to the supreme court.

From the circuit court of Hancock county. Hon. Ti-iaddeus A. Wood, Judge. Breeland, appellee, was the plaintiff, and Cue, appellant, was defendant in the court below. The action was trespass for damages done to a county bridge. The plaintiff connects himself with the bridge only in this way: He erected the same under a contract with the county, and bound himself to the county, by his contract and a bond, to maintain the bridge for five years after its erection.

From the chancery court of Madison county. Hon. Henry C. Conn, Chancellor. Hodge and others, appellants, were complainants in the court below; Bennett, the appellee, was defendant there. The object of the suit was to sell the lands described in the bill for division of the proceeds.

From the circuit court of Warren county. Hon. Oliver W. Catchings, Special Judge. Marlett, the appellee, was the plaintiff and the railroad, etc., company, appellant, the defendant in the court below. The opinion states the case. The verdict in this case is excessive. Pine v. St. Paul Oity Pcdlroad Oo., 52 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas., 584.

From the circuit court of Madison county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Shingleur, etc., Co., appellant, was the plaintiff, and the Canton, etc., Co., appellee, defendant in the court below. The opinion states the case. The appellee had no statutory lien under § 2862, code 1892.

From the circuit court of Madison county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. From a judgment of the court below in favor of Frazier, vacating an assessment, Madison county appealed to the supreme court. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. The appeal by Frazier from the board of supervisors to the circuit court was void, being from a mere ministerial act of the board, and not from its final judgment.

From the circuit court of Lauderdale county. Hon. Green B. Huddleston, Judge. Carlisle, the appellee, was plaintiff, and Rosenbaum, appellant, defendant, in the court below. The opinion states the controlling facts of the case.

From the circuit court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Adams, state revenue agent, appellant, was the plaintiff, and the Jackson Electric Railway, etc., Co., appellee, was defendant in the court below.

From the circuit court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Adams, state revenue agent, appellee, was plaintiff and the railroad company, appellant, was defendant in the court below. From a judgment in plaintiff’s favor defendant appealed to the supreme court. The opinion states the case. The declaration admits expressly that in this state interest is not recoverable on taxes.

From the chancery court of Holmes county. Hon. Adam M. Byrd, Chancellor. Edward- H. Miles, appellant, was the complainant, and' Theus N. Miles and others, appellees, were defendants in the court below. From a decree sustaining defendants’ demurrer to the bill of complaint and dismissing the suit, the complainant appealed to the supreme court. The opinion states the facts.

From the circuit court of Sunflower county. Hon. Frank E. Larkin, Judge. The appellant, Darrill, was plaintiff, and appellees, Dodds and others, were defendants in the court below. The opinion of the court states the case. There was no written notice of the nonjoinder filed with defendant’s plea, as is required by § 664, code of 1892, and if there had been, the declaration could have been amended without working any hardship on defendants.

From the chancery court, second district, of Coahoma county. Hon. A. Me. Kimbrough, Chancellor. Tony, the appellee and cross appellant, was the complainant in the court below; the building and loan association, the appellant and cross appellee, was defendant there. The opinion of the court states the case. * The facts in this case, as shown by the bill and answer, are in effect the same as in the case of Soholoshi v. B. do L. Assn. ,■ 77 Miss., 155.

Prom the chancery court of Lafayette county. Hon. James C. Longstreet, Chancellor. Purvis, the appellant, was the complainant in the court below; Woodward, administrator, the appellee,, was defendant there. ' The object of the suit was to enjoin a sale of lands under a deed of trust, the claim being that the debt was usurious, and that the principal thereof had been paid. The debt was contracted November 21, 1877.

From the chancery court of Harrison county. Hon. Stone Deavours, Chancellor. . Perrett, the appellant, was the complainant in the court below; Borries, appellee, was defendant there. The object of the bill was ,to cancel a tax title. The defendant, Borries, made his answer a cross bill and sought the confirmation of the tax title. The court below decreed in favor of defendant, granting him relief on his' cross bill, confirming the tax title.

From the circuit court of Clay county. Hon. Charles H. Campbell, Special Judge. Clisby, who sued for the use of the Home Insurance Company, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company was defendant there. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. In view of the conflict of the evidence on the most material issues in the case, it was essential there should be no errors of law in the instructions to the jury.

From the circuit court of Bolivar county. Hon. Erank E. Larkin, Judge. Edwards, the appellee, was plaintiff, and the railroad company, appellant, was defendant in the court below. The case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts, which was as follows: “1. The defendant filed for record with the plaintiff, who is and was the chancery clerk of Bolivar county, Mississippi, on June 14, 1900, a certain deed. ‘1 2.

From the circuit court of Jones county. Hon. John R. Enochs, Judge. This was an action by the appellant, Charles R. Shannon, for the recovery of usurious interest paid to the appellee, the Georgia State Building & Loan Association, and was begun by attachment against the defendant as a nonresident.

From the circuit court of Harrison county. Hon. Thaddeus A. Wood, Judge. Milliot, the appellee, was plaintiff in the court below, and McCaughn, appellant, was defendant there. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Prom the circuit court of Hinds county, first district. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Adams, state revenue agent, appellee, was the plaintiff, and the railroad company, appellant, defendant in the court below. The opinion states the case. The court below should have taken one or the other of two courses.

From the circuit court of Noxubee county. Hon. Guión Q. Hall, Judge. Mrs. Hoskins and another, appellants, were the plaintiffs in the court below; Ames and another, appellees, were defendants there. The opinion states the case. The circuit court decided this case on the idea that appellants were barred by the statutes of limitation.

From tbe circuit court of Lauderdale county. Hon. Green B. Huddleston, Judge. Wilson, administrator, appellee, was the plaintiff and the National Building and Loan Association, appellant, defendant in the court below. The opinion states the controlling facts of the case. In the New South contract the premium was directly and indissolubly connected with the loan.