? INDEX. operated in eonncotiun with mus?eal ?d?me?ta to which t?ey are sdapted produce the same musieal tones s? s?e represented by the and fi?res on the copy in staff notation of the compoe/tion fried by the composer for cop:right. I/?. 5. ? o] tl?e not protected. Considerations of the Imrdshlpe of tho? whose published produetlon? are not protected by the copyright properly ?cldremed themselves to Con- ?rees and not to the courte. Ib. The existing copyright statute has not prov/ded for the intellectual concep- tion, even thofgh mer/torious, apart from the t.h/ng produced; but has provided for the making and filinE of & tang/hie tiring a?/uat the dupli- cation whereof it hea protected the composer. CORPORATE NAME. 00P, PORATIONS. A corporation formed by the ounsolid?tion of roveml e?Jsting corporations /s subject to the constitution and laws existing at the t/me of the consoli- datiun in the same manner ? all other corporations formed under the organic law of the State; ?nd where the formation of the consolidated corporation is not imposed upon it, the constitution und law? in toree become the law of its corporate be/ng and if they prohibit the exempt/on of property of corporations from taxation such an exempt/on existing/n favor of one of the constituent companies eaunot, he tre?s/arred to the consolidated corporation, and under such ciraunmtanes? the exemption is not within the protect/on of the contract clause of the Constitution of the United States. Yo,,.oo & ?Ii?. R. It. Co. v. Viekaburg, 358. 2. Co?olidation; at.e,n?tion in !c?vor o! eo?i?uent coraparty not im, ri? ?ae#t of. .?m exemption in favor of a Mi?i, mippi corporation ?'unted by ordinanes prior to 18?0,/?/d, not, to inure to the benefit, of a consolidated corpore- tion, of wh/oh the exempted col'potation w? one of the eon?ituent, companies, or?.ni?-?d &fter the adoption of the state con?itution of 1800. See Ac-r?o?s, 2; �?UmSDWr?OS, B 5, 6. COURTS 1. l?ter!ere?ee w?h e?e?tive Ev? if the power to review the determination of an ex?utive department exista, where thc complainant is merely appealin? from the dheret/o? of the dap?rtment to the discretion of the court, the court, should not
�
