Adams v. Natchez, Jackson & Columbus Railroad
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the chancery court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Henry C. Conn, Chancellor. Adams, state revenue agent, the appellant, was the complainant in the court below; the railroad company and others were defendants there. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. Under the code of 1892, § 4190, etc., the powers of the revenue agent extended only to bringing suits touching ‘ ‘ revenue ’ ’ and taxes.
Read the full summary
From the chancery court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Henry C. Conn, Chancellor. Adams, state revenue agent, the appellant, was the complainant in the court below; the railroad company and others were defendants there. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. Under the code of 1892, § 4190, etc., the powers of the revenue agent extended only to bringing suits touching ‘ ‘ revenue ’ ’ and taxes. Experience showed the necessity of protecting the public in its rights in a wider scope than mere ‘‘ revenue ’ ’ suits, and in 1894 the powers of the revenue agent were extended…
1Opinion of the CourtTerral, J.
Wirt Adams, state revenue agent, filed this bill in his own name, as revenue agent, alleging that Hinds, Adams and Jefferson counties, under authority conferred upon them for that *721purpose by an act of the legislature of the State of Mississippi, subscribed and paid for shares of stock in the Natchez, Jackson & Columbus Railroad Company, which was duly issued to them; that Hinds county acquired stock in said company in the sum of §200,000; that Adams county acquired stock in said company in the sum of §300,000, and that Jefferson county acquired stock in said company in the sum of §100,000;…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Gully v. Williams Bros., Inc.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1938
- Adams v. Jackson Electric Railway, Light & Power Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1901
- Hinds & Adams Counties v. Natchez, Jackson & Columbus RailroadMississippi Supreme Court · 1904