Anthony v. County of Jasper
Decision Date | 01 October 1879 |
Citation | 25 L.Ed. 1005,101 U.S. 693 |
Parties | ANTHONY v. COUNTY OF JASPER |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The case was argued by Mr. John B. Henderson and Mr. Joseph Shippen for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Alexander Graves, contra.
Mr. E. J. Montague and Mr. Fillmore Beall filed printed arguments for the defendant in error.
This is a suit upon interest coupons originally attached to bonds issued under the Township Aid Act of Missouri, and presents the following facts:——
On the 10th of February, 1872, the township of Marion, in Jasper County, upon a cal duly made under the law, voted to subscribe $75,000 to the stock of the Memphis, Carthage, and Northwestern Railroad Company upon certain conditions, and on the 28th of March following the county court made the subscription on the terms and subject to the conditions specified.
On the 30th of March in that year an act was passed by the General Assembly of Missouri, entitled 'An Act to provide for the registration of bonds issued by counties, cities, and incorporated towns, and to limit the issue thereof.' Sect. 4 of that act is as follows:——
On the 4th of June, 1872, the county court ordered that $50,000 of the bonds which had been voted should be issued, that the clerk have them registered according to law, and, when registered, that they be deposited in escrow with some responsible banker in St. Louis.
John Purcell was the presiding justice of the court in March. He continued in office until September, 1872, when he resigned, and R. S. Merwin was appointed in his place Oct. 21, 1872. The bonds now in question were sealed with the seal of the court, affixed by the clerk, and signed by Merwin, as presiding justice, and by the clerk in October, 1872, but antedated as of March 28. Merwin delivered them during the same month, with the first two coupons cut off, to the Union Savings Bank of St. Louis, for the use of Edward Burgess, a contractor for building the road. In November, Burgess sold them to one Wilson at fifty-five cents on the dollar, and the bank gave them up to the purchaser on his order. Neither the other justice of the county court, nor the court as a court, consented to what was done by Merwin, and the railroad company has never fully complied with the conditions of the vote authorizing the issue of the bonds. No registry of the bonds was ever made, as required by the act of March 30, 1872, and they did not have upon them the certificate of registration. Anthony, the plaintiff below, was a purchaser for value of the bonds from which the coupons sued on were cut, and without any notice that they had been antedated, or were in any respect irregular or invalid.
The Circuit Court, on this state of facts, gave judgment against Anthony, and he brought this writ of error.
2. That if it does, the county is estopped from denying that these bonds were actually issued on the day they bear date.
The first o jection is, as we think, untenable. It does not appear to have been taken or considered below. While the bonds are township bonds, in the sense that they are payable out of taxes levied on the property in the township which voted them, they were issued by the county. The county court, which represented the county in its corporate capacity, made the subscription voted by the township, and issued the bonds in the name of the county. Under the same authority the necessary taxes are to be levied on the property in the township, and from moneys obtained in this way the county treasurer is to pay the bonds and coupons as they mature. The bonds on their face acknowledge an indebtedness of the county 'for and on account of' the township. Since townships have no corporate organization of their own they act through the county, which, for this purpose, represents them as, under other circumstances, it does the people of the whole county.
The act in question is not confined to the bonds of counties, but embraces all issued by counties. As there can be no township bonds except they are issued by counties, it seems to us that they come within the descriptive words used in the fourth section, and we have been unable to find any thing in the other parts of the act manifesting an intention to give these words any other than thier usual and ordinary signification. The object of the new legislation undoubtedly was to guard against unauthorized issues of this class of public securities. For this purpose a new policy was adopted by the State. The evil which the General Assembly had in view affected township bonds, as well as those of counties, cities, or towns. In fact, as ordinarily the same officers put out the township bonds that did those of the county, it is impossible to discover any good reason for guarding one against frauds and mistakes rather than the other. The records of the county court should contain an account of all that has been done in this way by that body for the townships, and the chief financial officer of the county can as easily furnish the State auditor with a statement of these obligations as he can of those of the county at large. When the State auditor certifies to the county court the amount required during the next year to meet...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
First Nat. Bank v. Obion County
...L. Ed. 748; Daviess County v. Huidekoper, 98 U. S. 98, 25 L. Ed. 112; Orleans v. Platt, 99 U. S. 676, 25 L. Ed. 404; Anthony v. Jasper County, 101 U. S. 693, 25 L. Ed. 1005; Buchanan v. Litchfield, 102 U. S. 287, 291, 26 L. Ed. 138; Wells v. Pontotoc County, 102 U. S. 625, 26 L. Ed. 122; Bo......
-
Scott County, Ark. v. Advance-Rumley Thresher Co.
... ... deny its power to act. Daviess County v. Dickinson, ... 117 U.S. 657, 6 Sup.Ct. 897, 29 L.Ed. 1026; Anthony v ... County of Jasper, 101 U.S. 693, 25 L.Ed. 1005; ... Daniels v. Tearney, 102 U.S. 415, 420, 26 L.Ed. 187 ... Litchfield v. Ballou et ... ...
-
King v. Priest
...24 L. Ed. 572; State ex rel. Carpenter v. St. Louis, 318 Mo. 870, 2 S.W. (2d) 713; 59 C.J. 73; Anthony v. Jasper County, 101 U.S. 639, 25 L. Ed. 1005; Lamar Township v. City of Lamar, 261 Mo. 171, 169 S.W. 12. (3) The control of the Police Force is vested in the Board of Police Commissioner......
-
King v. Priest
... ... of administrative boards and agencies. City of Joplin v ... Jasper County, 349 Mo. 441, 161 S.W.2d 411; Currin ... v. Wallace, 306 U.S. 1, 83 L.Ed. 441; Redlands ... 572; State ex rel. Carpenter v. St. Louis, ... 318 Mo. 870, 2 S.W.2d 713; 59 C.J. 73; Anthony v. Jasper ... County, 101 U.S. 639, 25 L.Ed. 1005; Lamar Township ... v. City of Lamar, 261 ... ...