Bradley v. City of Jackson

I dissent from the opinion of the majority on both of the grounds therein set forth for the affirmance of this case.

It appears clear to me that the city was proceeding upon the theory that it had a right to superintend the construction of the piers in the watercourse provided for in its contract; and the declaration clearly makes a case, in my opinion, of that theory; and if the city was, in fact, undertaking to act on any theory that it had a governmental right so to do, independent of Exhibit E, it would devolve upon the city to set that up by plea, as the declaration as finally amended did…