Article Text
Washington, April 2.-In the case of Wilford P. Joy VS. the City of St. Louis and others, the supreme court of the United States Monday affirmed the decision of the United States circuit court for the eastern district of Missouri, dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction which was favorable to the city. The case involved a claim to land on the bank of the Mississippi river in St. Louis which has been taken as a wharf and to which Joy claimed title under a Spanish concession made in 1787. The opinion was handed down by Justice Peckham. The court decided the Michigan railway tax cases involving the taxes of all the railroads for several years, against the railroads. The opinion was by Justice Brewer. The case involved the validity of a Michigan law fixing the tax value of railroad property on the average value at which other property is assessed. As this nearly quadrupled the taxes paid by the railroads they resisted, and approximately $2,000,000 in back taxes is now collectable. In the case of the United States VS. Wickersham, the court decided that A person employed in the civil service may recover damages on account of suspension from office by a subordinate official, affirming the decision of the court of claims. The court decided the case of Henry Wyman and others against Sumner Wallace and others in favor of the latter, upholding the lower court Wallace was the holder of one of three notes for $67,000 given by the American National bank of Omaha, Neb. The bank went into voluntary liquidation in 1896. The lower court held the stockholders liable for $87 on each share of stock the double liability. The fact that one minority stockholder of the bank, Justice Brewer said, voted against the liquidation of the -bank's affairs, does not relieve him from responsibility. In an opinion by Justice Brown ,the court decided the case of the Houston & Texas Central Railway company VS. J. A. Mayes, in favor of the company. Mayes ordered 17 cars in which to ship 625 head of cattle. The cars arrived 24 hours after the time set in the agreement. Mayes sued under a Texas law for damags done his cattle by the delay and also under the state law to recover $25 per car on his contract with the company. The lower courts upheld the complainant. The supreme court, however, holds that the law takes no account of accidents is too arbitrary, encroaches on federal control of the inter-state commerce and is therefore unconstitutional. The chief justice and Justices Harlan and McKenna dissented.