Smith v. Police Jury of Claiborne Parish State, Davis v. (Ala.). State, Dobbs v. (Miss.). 239 915 543 Snyder's Cafe v. Queen City Market Co. (Ala.) 701 State, Edwards v. (Miss.).. 917 State, Everett v. (Miss.). 602 State, Fantroy v. (Ala.). 610 State, Ford v. (Miss.).. 632 State v. Fort (Ala.). 813 State, Frierson v. (Miss.). 233 State, Geiders v. (Ala.). 560 State, Gillespie v. (Miss.). State, Gillespie v. (Miss.). State, Gillman v. (Ala.). 898 277 931 813 317 483 232 811 92€ 722 Southern R. Co., Ables v. (Ala.). ... State v. Hughes (Miss.). State, Jackson v. (Ala.). State v. Jeanisse (La.).. 327 State v. Jefferson (La.). 987 State v. Johnson (La.).. 147 State, Jordan v. (Ala.). 616 State, Kennedy v. (Miss.). 340 State v. Kirby (Miss.). 996 State v. Kirkland (Miss.). 368 State, Kimbell v. (Ala.). ... 464 1038 290 203 289 620 898 811 813 16 State v. Rose (La.).. 496 Texas & P. R. Co., In re (La.).. 582 564 Texas & P. R. Co., In re (La.).. 846 898 Texas & P. R. Co., Belle Alliance Co. v. 302 (La.) 846 337 Texas & P. R. Co., Jones v. (La.). 582 465 547 Texas & P. R. Co. v. W. K. Henderson Iron Works & Supply Co. (La.).... 201 602 Theisman's Estate, Kreher v. (La.). 656 610 Theriot v. Daigle (La.). 632 Thiel v. Butker (La.). 500 813 Thomas v. Henderson (La.). 202 209 373 Willis, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Fla.)... 134 Willoughby v. Pope (Miss.). 721 523 Weinhardt v. New Orleans (La.). Weller & Sons v. Rensford (Ala.). Wells v. State (Miss.).. 740 338 ... Western Union Tel. Co. v. Burns (Ala.).. 913 W. L. Weller & Sons v. Rensford (Ala.).. 344 ... .... 849 715 813 134 214 976 812 998 453 726 714 719 West, Western Union Tel. Co. v. (Ala.).. Wetzel v. Ft. Myers (Fla.). 740 540 Whaley v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. (Ala.) 419 W. K. Henderson Iron Works & Supply 294 812 White V. Henderson-Boyd Lumber Co. Wright v. Bush (Ala.). 635 (Ala.) 764 Wright, Hudson v. (Ala.). .... 389 Wright v. Wright (Ala.) 429 White, Witherington v. (Ala.). 726 White Lumber Co., Cranford v. (Miss.)... 483 Whitmore v. Alabama Consol. Coal & Iron W. T. Adams Mach. Co., Southern R. Co. v. (Ala.).... 779 Co. (Ala.).. 397 799 Yazoo City, Wise v. (Miss.). 453 Wilkerson, Lodge v. (Ala.). 609 Wilkins Co., Board of Com'rs of Iowa Drainage Dist. No. 1 v. (La.)............. Wilkins Co., Board of Com'rs of Iowa Drainage Dist. No. 1 v. (La.). 91 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., Cage v. (Miss.)... 483 450 94 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., Vicksburg Waterworks Co. v. (Miss.). 915 Yount, Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. (Ala.) 737 385 Young v. Brock (Ala.).. 315 THE SOUTHERN REPORTER. VOLUME 51, of both parties, directing shipment of certain IOWA CITY STATE BANK v. TAYLOR et goods to defendant, and providing that the order al. (No. 14,119.) (Supreme Court of Mississippi. Jan. 24, 1910.) BILLS AND NOTES (§ 537*) - SIGNATURE OF PARTIES-EVIDENCE-QUESTION FOR JURY. There, in an action on notes alleged to have been signed by defendants, the loss of the originals was shown, and copies were introduced, and a defendant denied the signing of the notes, the giving of a peremptory instruction for defendants was erroneous. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. § 1863; Dec. Dig. § 537.*] Appeal from Circuit Court, Simpson County; R. L. Bullard, Judge. Action by the Iowa City State Bank against W. M. Taylor and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded. Appellant was the holder of certain notes alleged to have been signed by the appellees. The notes were destroyed by fire, and copies were introduced, and on the trial secondary evidence was introduced to show the loss of the originals. One of the defendants on the stand denied the signing of the notes. On this disputed state of facts, there was a peremptory instruction for defendant. A. M. Edwards, for appellant. Hilton & Hilton, for appellees. MAYES, J. It is our view that the court below erred in giving a peremptory instruction to find for defendants. Indeed, it is very doubtful as to whether or not, on the facts as they now appear, a peremptory instruction should not have been given for plaintiff. We leave this question to be decided by the trial court on another trial. Reversed and remanded. (96 Miss. 835) was subject to approval of plaintiff, that no verbal agreement would be recognized, and that all conditions of sale must appear on the order. Held, that the order, when accepted by plaintiff, was a contract of sale, the terms of which could not be varied by parol evidence of an agreement of plaintiff to sell the goods for defendant. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. § 2035; Dec. Dig. § 441.*] Appeal from Circuit Court, Alcorn County; E. O. Sykes, Judge. Action by the Cheek-Neal Coffee Company against the Morrison-Hinton Grocery ComFrom an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded. pany. This The appellant brought suit against the appellee to recover the purchase price of certain goods alleged to have been sold appellee upon a written order signed by the agent of both appellant and appellee. The orders were addressed to the appellant and contained the following clause: "Ship to MorrisonHinton Grocery Company, at Corinth, Mississippi. When, ship at once. order is subject to the approval of the firm. No verbal agreement will be recognized. All conditions of sale must appear on this order." After keeping the goods for some months, appellee returned most of them, and appellant, who refused to accept them, brought suit for the purchase price. On the trial the appellee sought to defeat a recovery because of an alleged parol agreement had with an agent of appellant, who was a traveling salesman, to sell the goods for appellee, which he failed to do. Appellee tendered a small part of this money, which he admitted he owed for goods already used, which amount appellant refused to accept. The case was submitted to a jury, and there was a verdict for the appellant for the amount tendered by appellee, and this appeal is pros CHEEK-NEAL COFFEE CO. v. MORRI-ecuted. (Supreme Court of Mississippi. Jan. 24, 1910.) Bennett & Sweat, for appellant. Candler & Candler, for appellee. SMITH, J. Leaving out of view the auDefendant gave plaintiff's agent an order, thority, or want of authority, of appellant's addressed to plaintiff, and signed by the agent salesman to make the parol agreement al*For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Reporter Indexes leged to have been made by him, the terms of the written orders given him by appellee for transmission to his principal cannot be varied by parol testimony. These orders, having been accepted by appellant, clearly constitute contracts of sale. Under the evidence appellant was entitled to a verdict and judgment for the full amount sued for, except, possibly, for the item in appellant's setoff for goods alleged to have been delivered, as to which we express no opinion. Reversed and remanded. (96 Miss. 832) BOARD OF LEVEE COM'RS OF YAZOO MISSISSIPPI DELTA v. ROYAL INS. (Supreme Court of Mississippi. Jan. 24, 1910.) STATUTES (§ 109*)-TITLES-SUBJECTS OF LEG ISLATION. Const. 1890, § 71, requiring every bill to have a title which shall indicate clearly its subject-matter, requires the title of an act amending the Code to indicate fully what subjects of the Code are dealt with in the body of the act; and Acts 1908, p. 59, c. 73, § 7, entitled as an act to amend enumerated sections of chapter 114, Code 1906, but the title to which does not refer to a certain section which was materially amended in the body of the act, contravenes the Constitution. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Statutes, Cent. Dig. § 138; Dec. Dig. § 109.*] Mayes, J., dissenting. When we examine the title of chapter 73 of the above acts, and compare it with the requirements of the above section of the Constitution, it is seen that it is in plain violation of the letter and purpose of the constitutional provision, in so far as section 7 of the act is concerned. Thus, the act in question is entitled "An act to amend sections 3778, 3789, 3791, 3793, 3810, 3826, 3837, 3840, 3846, 3847, 3849, 3851, 3860, 3866, 3870, 3873, 3876, 3886, and 3875, and to repeal sections 3836 and 3869 of chapter 114, Code 1906." Let it be here noted that nowhere in the title is it indicated that section 3832 of the Code is to be amended in any way, and yet section 7 of the acts does amend section 3832, and makes of it a materially different section. In other words, the title to the act should indicate fully what subjects of the Code are to be dealt with in the body of the act, so that any legislator reading the title might, from that, have full knowledge of the scope of the proposed amendments, to the end that nothing should be concealed in the body of the act by a misleading title; and this is the purpose sought to be accomplished by section 71 of the Constitution. We are not to be understood as saying that, when a section or sections of the Code are to be amended, the title must contain each specific section to be amended; but, where the title makes no other reference to the subject of the act than by sections of Appeal from Circuit Court, Coahoma Coun- the Code to be amended or repealed, then ty; Sam C. Cook, Judge. Action by the Royal Insurance Company against the Board of Levee Commissioners of Yazoo-Mississippi Delta. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. versed and remanded. Re F. A. Montgomery, for appellant. J. W. Cutrer, for appellee. SMITH, J. This case is before this court a second time. On the first appeal it was sought to have this court declare unconstitutional section 7, c. 73, p. 59, of the Acts of 1908, because in violation of section 234 of the Constitution of 1890. The court held to the view that the act of 1908, in section 7 of above chapter, did not violate the above section, and the case is reported in 48 South. 183. On this second appeal it is sought to have the section declared unconstitutional because in violation of section 71 of the Constitution. This section declares that: "Every bill introduced into the Legislature shall have a title, and the title ought to indicate clearly the subject-matter or matters of the proposed legislation. Each committee to which a bill may be referred shall express, in writing, its judgment of the sufficiency of the title of the bill, and this, too, whether the recommendation be that the bill do pass or do not pass." no other sections than those named in the title can be dealt with in the body of the act. The title to this act specifies the sections proposed to be amended, and it was violative of the Constitution to deal with any but those named. We are bound to hold that section 7 of chapter 73 of the Acts of 1908 is in violation of the Constitution, and therefore void. In the case of Sample v. Town of Verona, 48 South. 2, this court has already said that this provision of our Constitution is mandatory. Reversed and remanded. |