Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/495

 38a

THE GREEN BAG

driving of nails and fastening pulleys and cords for the suspension of articles for sale constitute a prohibited use of a portion for which the person so doing has made .no contribution to the cost? The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in the case of Berry v. Godfrey 84 N. E. Rep. 304 holds that it does and that the one constructing the wall is entitled to at least nominal damages therefor. TAXATION. (Impairing Contract Right of Corporation to Exemption.) U. S. Sup. Ct. — An interesting question relating to exemption from taxation is passed on by the United States Supreme Court in Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railway Company v. Vicksburg, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 510. It appeared that in 1888 the legislature of Mississippi passed an act giving authority to the city of Vicksburg to enter into a contract with the Mem phis & Vicksburg Railway Company by which it was agreed that with certain exceptions it should be exempted from all municipal taxation for a period of 99 years and that this right should extend to its successors or any company into which it might merge by consolidation or other wise. In 1890 a new state constitution was adopted which provided that " All corporate franchises under which organizations have not in good faith taken place at the adoption shall be subject to its provisions " and by another section provided that property of all private corporations for pecuniary gain shall be taxed the same as that of individuals. In 1892, the Louisville, New Orleans and Texas Railway Company of which the Memphis & Vicks burg Company was a constituent part consolidated with complainant and thereafter claimed the right of exemption under the statute and contract above referred to. The court held, however, that the consolidation subsequent to the adoption of the new constitution brought it within its terms and that it could not. now claim the exemption originally given to the Memphis & Vicksburg Company. TORTS. (Joinder of Tort Feasors as Parties.) Tex. Civ. App. — Defendant in error in the case of Sun Co. v. Wyatt, 107 S. W. Rep. 934, brought

action against the Sun Company, the Security Oil Company and the Higgins Oil & Fuel Com pany, to recover damages for a nuisance alleged to have been created by these parties by reason of certain pipe lines laid in front of the premises of plaintiff. Each of defendants demurred to the petition for misjoinder of parties defendant, on the ground that there was no averment of common ownership or operation of the pipe lines claimed to have caused the injury, nor any joint action in creating or maintaining the nuisance. The court below overruled the demurrers, and plaintiff recovered judgment assessing damages separately against each of the defendants, who thereupon appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals. That tribunal said: " It may be, and we are inclined to think that it would probably be a more sensible rule to allow all of the defendants to be sued in one action, holding each responsible only to the extent that its own acts contributed to the damages, but none of the authorities sup port this rule so far as we have been able to find, except the case of Warren v. Parkhurst, 92 N. Y. Supp. 725." The judgment of the trial court was therefore reversed and the cause remanded. WITNESSES. (Credibility.) Mo. — The Supreme Court of Missouri, in the case of Huss v. Heydt Bakery Co., 108 S. W. Rep. 63, passed upon the question of the right to show member ship of a witness in the same labor organization as that to which plaintiff belonged for the purpose of affecting credibility. The court said: " Had there been a manufacturers' union, and members thereof had been called for defendant, it would have been proper to have inquired of such witnesses as to whether or not they belonged to such union. In each the bonds of union are strong, as we are taught by common observation. . . . They may not be as closely interested as are partners, but they are interested in the promotion of a certain and definite purpose, and in that way would be subjected to the same rule. Certainly it would not be improper to ask a witness if he was a partner of a party to a suit. We conclude there fore that there was no error in the admission of this evidence."