What is the difference between the words 'rural use' and 'urban use' in a section of the constitution in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia?

Complainant's syllabus reads: 'Land which adjoins a city, and has little value for rural uses, but has great value for prospective urban purposes, may be properly annexed to such city. ' Defendant's point adopts the original expressions, 'rural purposes' and 'urban purposes,' where the opinion in several places reads 'country uses,' 'city uses,' but does not contain either of the words 'rural' or 'urban.'

2. House v. Phelan, 19 S.W. 140.

Complainant's point states the substance of a section of the constitution which is nowhere found in the opinion, but which is found in a copyrighted footnote of the defendant. Defendant copies this statement, and both editors err in stating the point decided by the court.

3. O'Connor v. Smith, 19 S.W. 168.

Complainant's point refers to a delay caused by the company in failing to have a survey made for work, defendant paraphrasing this as 'a delay caused by the failure of the company's engineer to have the necessary surveys made. ' There is nothing in the opinion about any surveys. The delayed matter is three times designating as 'cross-sectioning.' [79 F. 784.] 4. Richardson v. Pavell, 19 S.W. 262.

Both editors, in stating the ground upon which the court found an estoppel, omit the statement that the deed of defendant through which plaintiff claimed title was one 'with a general covenant of warranty,' which was the sole ground of the decision.

5. McFadden v. Schill, 19 S.W. 368.