Marshal v. Town of Elgin

• Decision Date: 01 September 1881
• Parties: MARSHAL and others v. THE TOWN OF ELGIN. SAME v. THE TOWN OF PLAINVIEW.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

8 F. 783

MARSHAL and others v. THE TOWN OF ELGIN.

SAME v. THE TOWN OF PLAINVIEW.

United States Circuit Court, D. Minnesota.

September, 1881

S. U Pinney and Thos. Wilson, for plaintiffs.

Gordon E. Cole and Robt. Taylor, for defendants.

These actions are brought to recover the amount of coupons which were attached to bonds issued by the towns of Elgin and Plainview, in this district, the plaintiffs being owners of the bonds and coupons, and also to recover the amount of coupons owned by them taken from bonds held by other parties to whom the plaintiffs had sold them. The bonds and coupons were issued to the Plainview Railroad Company by the town of Plainview, March 16, 1879, and by the town of Elgin about January 1, 1879, under chapter 106, General Laws of Minnesota, 1877, and were purchased by the plaintiffs July 9 1879, for value, and without notice of any of the matters relied on as defenses, except such as appear on their face.

Section 3 of the act referred to provides that no bonds shall be issued until a mutual agreement in relation to the construction of a railroad shall have been arrived at.

Section 4 enacts that a railroad company desiring aid in the construction of its road shall make a proposition in writing which shall contain a statement of the amount of the bonds of the town desired, and when they are to be delivered, which shall be filed with the auditor or clerk.

Section 7 declares that one mode of arriving at the mutual agreement required shall be:

'First. That within three months after filing a proposition the railroad company shall cause notice to be given that after a day named a petition to the proper authorities, asking them to agree to such proposition, will be presented to the resident tax-payers, and to the petition shall be appended a copy of the proposition. Second. If, within four months after the filing of such proposition with such clerk, * * * the railroad company shall deliver to such clerk a substantial copy, or copies, of such proposition so filed, with such petition, to the proper authorities of such town, asking such authorities to agree to such proposition appended thereto, bearing the signatures of a majority of the persons residing in such * * * town, * * * who were assessed for taxes upon real or personal estate in such * * * town, * * * as shown by the last assessment roll of the district of which aid is desired, which signatures shall be verified by the affidavit of some person witnessing such signatures, then such mutual agreement, for the issue of bonds by such municipality, and of the stock of such railroad company, shall be deemed and considered to have been arrived at and perfected, and thereupon such bonds shall be issued and delivered, in conformity with the true intent and meaning of such proposition, and with the provisions of this act.'

Each bond contains the following recital:

'This bond is issued in pursuance of a mutual agreement between said town and said railroad company, which agreement was made in accordance with the laws of the state of Minnesota, and through and by a proposition made by said railroad company, and duly accepted by said town, upon petition therefor signed by a majority of the resident tax-payers of said town, said agreement having been fully performed by the said railroad company on its part.

'This bond is issued in pursuance of the authority given for that purpose by the laws of the state of Minnesota, and in compliance with a resolution of the board of supervisors of said town.'

In the case of the town of Plainview, at or about the time the railroad company had complied on its part with the mutual agreement, one George Harrington, a tax-payer of that town, brought an action, in the district court of the state, against the town officers and the Plainview Railroad Company to restrain the town officers from executing and delivering the bonds as stipulated, for the alleged reason that the act under which they were issued, (section 7, c. 106, Laws of Minnesota for 1877,) which provides for arriving at a mutual agreement between the railroad company and the town by proposition and petition of a majority of the resident tax-payers, was unconstitutional and void. A temporary injunction was issued to restrain the execution and delivery of the bonds. The cause was tried January 27, 1879, upon stipulated facts, and among other things it was admitted at the trial--

'That, relying on and induced and influenced by the proceedings set out, and particularly by the resolution of the board of supervisors, the Plainview Railroad Company constructed and had, before the commencement of that action, its line of road constructed, and has had the same graded and the ties and iron laid thereon, with the cars running thereon from a point of junction with the Winona & St. Peter Railroad, in the county of Olmsted, east of the west line of Eyota, in said county, to a point within the corporate limits of the village of Plainview, as the same existed December 31, 1877, and had, in all respects, complied with the terms and conditions specified in the proposition by it to be performed.'

The district court held the act valid, and found for the defendants. A motion for a new trial, made by the plaintiff, was denied March 11, 1879, and he appealed from such denial to the supreme court of Minnesota on the next day. Three days afterwards judgment was entered by the district court dissolving the injunction and dismissing the action, and on the next day the town issued the bonds in question. On the sixth of October, 1880, the supreme court of Minnesota, having heard the appeal, decided that the act under which the bonds were issued (chapter 106, Sec. 7, Laws 1877,) was unconstitutional and void.

NELSON, D.J.

These cases are tried together without a jury. The only...