Groton Bridge & Manufacturing Co. v. Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co.
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the chancery court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Henry C. Conn, Chancellor. The Groton Bridge, etc., Co., appellant, was complainant, and the railway company, appellee, defendant, in the court below. The opinion states the facts of the case.
Read the full summary
From the chancery court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Henry C. Conn, Chancellor. The Groton Bridge, etc., Co., appellant, was complainant, and the railway company, appellee, defendant, in the court below. The opinion states the facts of the case. What is the effect of +he borings showing the precise number of feet of sand, gravelly clay, fine white sand, blue clay, and stiff blue clay at their relative depths on the drawing ? It will be noted that there are three borings on the plat, one on each bank of the river near piers 2 and 3, and one near pier 4, not in the contract. The…
1Opinion of the Court
J". A. P. Campbell, Special J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action for damages for breach of a contract set forth in complainant’s bill. No objection was made to the jurisdiction of the chancery court, as, doubtless, the defendant welcomed the call to respond to the demand before a chancellor, rather than a jury; and we call attention to this feature of the case, not to make any ruling upon it, but to exclude the con*170elusion that it is to be regarded as an authoritative precedent for maintaining the jurisdiction of chancery in such cases.
The facts are that the appellee, having…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Walla Walla City v. Walla Walla Water Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Simpson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Atlantic Dredging Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1900
- Delafield v. Village of WestfieldNew York Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hart v. BoytMississippi Supreme Court · 1877