Iïaüroad Taxation. - Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Company vs. Commonwealth of Virginia, and four other cases. Error to the Court of Appeals of Virginia. In Üiese cases the court affirms the judgxnent of the Court of Appeals of the State, holding that a trae construction of the laws in relation to the road does uot warrant the conclusión that the property of the company is exempt from taxation, as claimed by it. Ás to Expres Companics. - Southern Express Company vs. Dicksou. Error to the Circuit Court for Alabama. In this case the court holds that where goods are shipped by an cxpress company'for a destination tliey caunot be delivered at any other place without the consent of the consignor or owner, and it makes no difference that they are claimed by one of the consiguees at the place of consignment. mmt Oonsfttutes Insurance. - Eames et al. vs. Home Insurance Company. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Illinois. It is here held that where an application for insurance liad been made in dne form, the property to be insured being fully described, the amount of insurance named, and the rato of premium agreed upon, and there being no question about any other point in the contract, nothing remaining to bc dono but to issue the policy, the contract of insurance was perfected, the risk taken, and m case of loss by fire the company is liable. A TowrCs Iïcspowtibility. - Town qf East Lincoln vs. Chas. Davcnport. Appeal from Southern District of Illinois. The question in this case was ns to the legality of certain bonds issued by the town of Enst Lincoln. It was shown tliat the plaintift', who was the bona fide owuer of coupons, sued upon the question of tke former's irregularity. Misconduot upon the part of agents cannot be considered. The Supervisor who signed the bonds at midnight and absconded to avoid nn injunction, was agent of the town, and it must bear lus misconduct. He is the one in authority. The town levies a subscription to these bonds. The bonds recite tlint they were issued in accordance with a town election. A majority of the whole atteiided and voted in favor of the subscription of $60,000. The statute is construed as making tliis act a subscription.