Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/384

 358 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Argument for Appellant.  U.S. to purchase as citizens of New Jersey. But this question does not concern the defendant, which is a New Jersey corpora- tion. There is nothing else that needs mention. We are of opinion that the decision of the Court of Errors and Appeals was right. MR. Jsc McKEnNA dissents. THE YAZO0 AND MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY v. CITY OF VICKSBURG. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRIC OF MISSISSIPPI, No. 97. Ard Fdoruary , l,--id A ration fo by the coolidation of veml isting tio  subjt W the cotitution and laws exiing at th e dation in the e ner  l other mtio fo der the c w of t S; d wh the fotion of mtion h not im un it, the titution d   fo me the law of i m ing d if they pwhibit the exption of pw e of mtio fm tation ch  exemion one of the itut mi cot mtion d der such u the ption  not wi the pwtion of the ntrt cla of the tituon of the ni  exption in favor of a Miippi mtion   o p W 1,  not  inure W the nefit of a da tiOn, of which the emp mtlon w one of the ituent m oi afar e option of the s itutlon of 1. THE facts are stated il the opinion. Mr. Edward Mayes, with whom Mr. J. M. Dickinson was on the brief, for appellant: The provision of the act of 1884 is materially different im

�