Bell v. Railroad Company

Decision Date01 December 1866
Citation71 U.S. 598,4 Wall. 598,18 L.Ed. 338
PartiesBELL v. RAILROAD COMPANY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

ERROR to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Mississippi.

The Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company, a corporation created by the laws of Alabama, was compelled, in order to reach its northern terminus, to pass through Mississippi, and the legislature being desirous that the road should be built, gave to the corporation the necessary powers to extend their line through the State. As the enterprise was one of great public utility, it was deemed important that the counties benefited by the construction of the road should have the privilege of subscribing for and holding stock in it. Provision was accordingly made for the police court of any county through which the road should be located, or of any county contiguous to it, to subscribe for stock, if the sense of the people of the county, obtained through an election, was in favor of it, and authority was given to levy a special tax to pay for the stock, if the vote was for the subscription. The sheriff of the county, who was ex-officio tax collector, was required, before he entered on the discharge of the duties imposed on him by this legislation, to execute a bond, payable to the president of the board of police and his successors in office, conditioned that he would safely keep and pay over to his order all moneys collected by virtue of the tax thus levied. The County of Pontotoc voted to subscribe for one hundred thousand dollars of stock in the road, and the board of police of the county, at their August term, 1852, levied a tax to pay for this subscription, and directed the sheriff to collect it, who, in pursuance of his instructions, did collect a certain sum of money.

The police court, for some reason not disclosed by the record failed to make the subscription, and controversy arose with the railroad corporation because this was not done, resulting in a litigation. This litigation was finally compromised; the railroad company agreeing to release all claim aginst the county on account of any liability for stock heretofore voted for by the people of the county, to be taken by the county, and the condition of the release being that the board of police would pay over as a bonus the sum collected by the sheriff.

The president of the board accordingly, by written draft, directed the sheriff, a certain Bell, to pay to the railroad company the sum of money already collected by him under order of the board of police for the purpose of paying for stock in the said company. Bell, when called on by the agent of the company, specially appointed to settle the dispute, to know if he would accept the order, told his agent 'to get up his order and fix it up right, and if things were fixed up right, he, Bell, had the money.' When, however, the order was actually presented, Bell would not accept the order nor pay the money, alleging that the stock had been illegally subscribed for.

He had not given a bond in the form prescribed by the statute authorizing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Pollack v. Meyer Bros. Drug Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 4, 1916
    ...... estate, and asking also that an injunction issue against the. St. Louis Union Trust Company of St. Louis, Mo., trustee,. restraining it from paying over to the said Joseph Pollack. the ...548, 553, 23 L.Ed. 983; Marshall. v. Vicksburg, 15 Wall. 146, 149, 21 L.Ed. 121;. Railroad Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. 65, 84, 20 L.Ed. 354; Campbell v. Wilcox, 10 Wall. 421, 423, 19 L.Ed. ... 354, 357, 19. L.Ed. 418; Aurora City v. West, 7 Wall. 82, 92, 19. L.Ed. 42; Bell v. Railroad Co., 4 Wall. 598, 602, 18. L.Ed. 338; Clearwater v. Meredith, 1 Wall. 25, 42,. 17 ......
  • City of Harper, Kan. v. Daniels
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • January 7, 1914
    ......548, 553, 23 L.Ed. 983;. Marshall v. Vicksburg, 15 Wall. 146, 148, 21 L.Ed. 121; Railroad Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. 65, 84, 20. L.Ed. 354; Campbell v. Wilcox, 10 Wall. 421, 423, 19. L.Ed. ...Martin, 8 Wall. 354,. 357, 19 L.Ed. 418; Aurora City v. West, 7 Wall. 82,. 92, 19 L.Ed. 42; Bell v. Railroad Co., 4 Wall. 598,. 602, 18 L.Ed. 338; Clearwater v. Meredith et al., 1. Wall. 25, 42, ......
  • Florida Land Inv. Co. v. Williams
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • February 14, 1922
    ...... Denied March 18, 1922. . . Action. between the Florida Land Investment Company, a corporation,. and Lucy R. Williams and husband. To review the judgment. rendered, the former ......
  • Township of Midland v. County Board of Gage County
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • September 20, 1893
    ...... Ch. 45, sec. 14, Comp. Stats., gave the township the right to. aid any railroad in constructing its line into the city of. Beatrice, Gage county, even though it should not enter ...14;. Council Bluffs & St. J. R. Co. v. Otoe County, 16. Wall. [U.S.] 667; Bell v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 4. Wall. 598.) If any taxpayer was deceived he must not only. show it, but ...Merrick. County, 18 Neb. 355, and cases cited.) The sale and. transfer by the Nebraska company of its railroad, constructed. and to be constructed, and the appurtenant franchise, to the. ......
  • 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