{"newspaper_name": "Mississippi advertiser.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 3075, "word_count": 537, "ccnet_language_score": [0.979200005531311], "ccnet_perplexity": [996.0], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
INTERESTING ENGLISH DEcIsoN.-The fol
lowing decision of the Vice Chancellor o
England will be read with interest by the
people of Mississippi. 1t will be seen that
even in England, the position assumed by
the ant-bonders of Mississippi--tha the
bonds were disposed of illegally, and created
in violation of the constitution; is fully sus-
tanned. s..I.


The vice chancellor gave judgment in the
case of Huxtable versus the State of Illinois,
on Monday. Before July, 1910, Maria Sarah
Langstone, who, in that year married Anthony
Huxtable, clerk, by the advice of Mr.. John
Wright, of the firm Of Wright s. Co., her
bankers, invested a considerable sum Of mo-
ney (5,554) in bonds issued under the seal of
the government of Illinois.-Msssrs Wright
were the agents for the state, to which they
were largely indebted when the bank failed.
Messrs Magniac, Smith & Co. were then ap"
pointed agent for the state; that firm subsc-
quenlly undergoing divers changes of part
nership, and becoming known as Magnac,
Jardine & Co.: while since April, 1922, Mes
srs Barring Brothers g. Co. having been the a.
genst. In March 1912, the agents refused 10
acknowledge Mrs Huxtable's bonds, or TO pay
the dividends upon them, on the plea that the
y
sent into the market by Messrs Wright & Co..
that the coupons had not been severed, and
also that the agents had not sufficient funds


The plaintiff denied that she was liable for
the irregularities of the states agent; and fur
ther alledged that Mr.. Jaudon, as commission
er Of the stale, had proved debt against the
estate of Messrs Wright e. Co. amounting to
e17,029, which sum included the money she
had invested. She therefore filed a bill a.
gainst the state and various persons, inclu-
ding the partners TO the several firms, pray
ing that the dividend of Wrights estate
might not be paid over to the state until her
claim should have been satisfied. The state
of Illinois did not appear to the bill; but
Messrs. Magniac & Co, and Messrs. Barring,
Brothers & Co., demurred to it, on the score
of general want of equity as regards them.


The Vice chancellor observed, in giving
judgment, it did not follow that if the state of
Illinois had repudiated the transaction, they
repudiated it in the offensive meaning inten-
ded to be given TO that word, or that they had
done so without reason; for if the state placed
bonds In the hands Of its agents with certain
directions how 10 use them and they were
improperly dealt with by those agents, it
would be TOO much to say that The stale acted
dishonesty because it refused TO sanction
what it did not authorize. He thought the
transaction q fair one on the part ofthe state.
The question here was, had the plaintiff, by
her bill, made out sufficient case against
Messrs. Magniac s. Co., as one party, and
Mcssrs. Barring, Brothers s. Co. as another
party7 The allegations in the bill were too
indistinct as respected the several parties
and though they appeared to the substralum
of good case, he did not think that it had
been sufficiently made out. The demurrer,
therefore was allowed.