Colorado Cent. R. Co. v. Lea

Decision Date01 December 1879
Citation5 Colo. 192
PartiesTHE COLORADO CENTRAL R. R. CO. v. LEA ET AL.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Mr. L C. ROCKWELL, Mr. B. L. CARR and Mr. PERCY AUSTIN, for defendants in error.

ELBERT C. J.

June 12, 1872, the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder county subscribed $200,000 to the capital stock of the Colorado Central R. R. Co., and upon that day ordered and called an election of the legal voters of the county, to be held on the 17th of July of that year, for the approval of said subscription to the stock and the issue of the bonds of the county for that amount therefor.

At the election the legal voters of the county approved of such subscription, and upon the 13th of March, 1873, the Colorado Central R. R. Co., acting in pursuance to the contract and subscription aforesaid, issued and delivered to Boulder county 2,000 shares of stock in said company of $100 each.

On the 16th of April, 1873, the Board of Commissioners of Boulder county issued and delivered to the Colorado Central Railroad Company $100,000 in Boulder county bonds, and on the 19th of April they issued to said railroad company the other $100,000 of said bonds.

Boulder county received the shares of stock, and retained the same as its property until about the 12th of June, 1877, when, in pursuance of the following agreement, the stock was placed in the hands of C. G. Buckingham, to hold as trustee. The agreement is as follows:

'WHEREAS The Colorado Central Railroad Company has made contracts for constructing an extension of its line of road from Longmont by way of Fort Collins, to a connection with the Union Pacific Railroad at Cheyenne. Now, therefore, it is

'Resolved That the county of Boulder hereby agrees to donate to the Colorado Central Railroad Company the 2,000 shares of stock in said Colorado Central Railroad Company now held by this county, upon the completion of said extension and making of said connection, and the running of freight and passenger trains thereon; Provided, said extension be made and said connection completed, and freight and passenger trains for the accommodation of the public be actually running thereon on or before the first day of December, A. D. 1877; and provided, also, that Boulder county shall have the right to vote said stock at all meetings of stockholders of said company until said donation is actually made, and that said Colorado Central Railroad Company take said stock and hold this county harmless from all litigation which may arise from said donation; and also provided that the time above specified shall be the essence of this agreement; and if said extension and connection is not made and completed, and trains running thereon as aforesaid, by said first day of December, 1877, then Boulder county will not donate its said stock as aforesaid.

'Resolved That the certificate for said stock now held by Boulder county be placed in escrow with Charles G. Buckingham, Esq., of the county of Boulder, to be held by him until said first day of December, A. D. 1877, or until the completion of said extension of said railroad and said connection and the running of trains thereon as aforesaid, if made and done on or before the date aforesaid, and that said Charles G. Buckingham, Esq., be, and he hereby is instructed in case said extension and connection shall be completed and trains running thereon, as aforesaid, on or before the above mentioned date, immediately thereafter to deliver said certificate to the said Colorado Central Railroad Company; but if said extension and connection shall not be completed and trains running thereon, as aforesaid, on or before said first day of December, 1877, then on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Interrogatory Propounded by Governor Roy Romer on House Bill 91S-1005, In re
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • July 11, 1991
    ...At first this prohibition of aid to corporations, absent consideration, was strictly enforced. For example, in The Colorado Central R.R. v. Lea, 5 Colo. 192 (1879), this court struck down a donation of 2,000 shares of stock belonging to Boulder County, to the Colorado Central Railroad Compa......
  • City and County of Denver v. Qwest Corp.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • February 26, 2001
    ...to aid a railroad company in connection with the construction of the Moffat Tunnel violated Article XI, section 2); Colo. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Lea, 5 Colo. 192 (1879)(invalidating agreement under which Boulder County planned to transfer 2,000 shares of stock to a railroad upon the railroad's c......
  • Harrington v. Atteberry
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • July 15, 1915
    ...cases, which they claim evidence the invalidity of the statute: Garland v. Board of Revenue, 87 Ala. 223, 6 South. 402; Colo. Cent. R. Co. v. Lea et al., 5 Colo. 192; Taylor v. Ross County Comr's, 23 Ohio St. 22; Wilkesbarre City Hospital v. County of Luzerne, 84 Pa. 55; Ellis v. N. R. R. C......
  • Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy Dist. v. Fort Lyon Canal Co.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • June 2, 1986
    ...was originally enacted to prevent state ownership of, and financial support for, new railroads within the state. See Colorado Central Railroad Co. v. Lea, 5 Colo. 192 (1879). 1. Special Status of Mutual Ditch A long line of Colorado cases holds that mutual ditch companies are not "true" cor......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT