358 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Argument for Appellant. ? U.S. to purchase as citizens of New Jersey. But this question does not concern the defendant, which is a New Jersey corpora- tion. There is nothing else that needs mention. We are of opinion that the decision of the Court of Errors and Appeals was right. MR. J?s?c? McKEnNA dissents. THE YAZO0 AND MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY v. CITY OF VICKSBURG. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRIC? OF MISSISSIPPI, No. 97. Ar?d Fdoruary ?, l?,--?id? A ?ration fo? by the co?olidation of ?veml ?isting ?tio? ? subj?t W the co?titution and laws exi?ing at th ?e dation in the ?e ?ner ? ?l other ?mtio? fo? ?der the ?c ?w of t? S?; ?d wh? the fo?tion of ?mtion h not im? u?n it, the ?titution ?d ? ? fo? ?me the law of i? ?m? ?ing ?d if they pwhibit the ex?ption of pw? e? of ?mtio? f?m t?ation ?ch ? exem?ion one of the ?itu?t ?m?i? c?ot ?mtion? ?d ?der such ?u? the ?ption ? not wi? the pw?tion of the ?ntr?t cla? of the ?titu?on of the ?ni? ? ex?ption in favor of a M?i?ippi ?mtion ? ? o? p? W 1?, ? not ? inure W the ?nefit of a ?da? ?tiOn, of which the ?emp? ?mtlon w? one of the ?ituent ?m? o?i? afar ?e ?option of the s? ?itutlon of 1?. THE facts are stated il? the opinion. Mr. Edward Mayes, with whom Mr. J. M. Dickinson was on the brief, for appellant: The provision of the act of 1884 is materially different i?m
�
