Bolles v. Town of Brimfield

Decision Date07 March 1887
Citation120 U.S. 759,30 L.Ed. 786,7 S.Ct. 736
PartiesBOLLES and another v. TOWN OF BRIMFIELD
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Thos. S. McClelland and Geo. A. Sanders, for plaintiffs in error.

H. B. Hopkins, for defendant in error.

HARLAN, J.

In Anderson v. Santa Anna, 116 U. S. 356, 364, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 413, we had occasion to consider the validity of so much of the act of the legislature of Illinois of February 28 1867, in reference to municipal subscriptions to the stock of the Danville, Urbana, Bloomington & Pekin Railroad Company, as declared that where elections had been held, and a majority of the legal voters of any township or incorporated town declared in favor of a subscription to the stock of that company, 'then and in that case no other election need be held, and the amount so voted for shall be subscribed' as in that act provided; further, 'that such elections are hereby declared to be legal and valid,' as though that act had been in force at the time thereof, and all its provisions had been complied with. An election was held in the township of Santa Anna, July 21, 1866, but there was no authority of law for its being held. It was, however, conducted in the customary mode, and the proposition for a subscription was sustained by a majority of the legal voters of the township. The subscription was made October 1, 1867, in pursuance of that vote, and of the curative act of February 28, 1867. The validity of bonds issued in payment of the subscription was disputed upon the ground that the last-named act was in violation of the constitution of Illinois. We held, in accordance with numerous decisions of this court cited in the opinion, that subsequent legislative ratification of the acts of a municipal corporation, which might lawfully have been performed under legislative sanction in the first instance, was equivalent to original authority. We referred, in that case, to United States Mortgage Co. v. Gross, 93 Ill. 483, 494, where the supreme court of Illinois said that, 'unless there be a constitutional inhibition, a legislature has power, when it interferes with no vested right, to enact retrospective statutes to validate invalid contracts, or to ratify and confirm any act it might lawfully have authorized in the first instance.'

As a municipal corporation, organized for public purposes, has, as a general rule, and as between it and the state, no privileges or powers which are not subject at all times, under the constitution, to legislative control, and as the legislature might legally have authorized a subscription by the township of Santa Anna, with the assent of a majority of its legal voters, we adjudged the act of February 28, 1867, to be within the constitutional power of the legislature to pass.

Does the present case come within these principles? By the sixth section of an act of the general assembly of Illinois, approved March 5, 1867, incorporating the Dixon, Peoria & Hannibal Railroad Company, it is provided that 'the several counties in which any part of said road may hereafter be located, and the several townships in said counties which have adopted or may hereafter adopt township organizations, and the cities and incorporated towns in said counties, are hereby authorized to subscribe and take stock in said Dixon, Peoria & Hannibal Railroad Company.' 2 Priv. Laws Ill. 1867, p. 606. The act restricted a subscription by a county to $100,000, and a subscription by a township, city, or town to $35,000.

It is admitted that at an election duly notified and held on the third day of August, 1868, the town of Brimfield, by a vote of 150 as against 56, lawfully voted to subscribe $35,000 to the stock of the railroad company, and to issue its bonds therefor. At the same time and place, but without authority of law, an election was held to take the sense of the voters of the town as to an additional subscription by it of $15,000 to the stock of the same company, for which coupon bonds should be issued, payable in 10, 15, and 20 years. This last proposition was sustained by a vote of 153 as against 55.

On the thirty-first of March, 1869, the general assembly of Illinois passed an act declaring 'that a certain election held in the township of Brimfield, in Peoria county, on the third day of August, 1868, at which a majority of the legal voters in said township, at special town meeting, voted to subscribe for and take $15,000 of the capital stock of the Dixon, Peoria & Hannibal Railroad Company over and above the amount authorized to be taken by the charter of said company, is hereby legalized and confirmed, and is declared to be binding upon said township in the same manner as if said subscription had been made under the provisions of said charter.' 3 Priv. Laws Ill. 372. Subsequently, May 5, 1869, the township, by its proper officers, issued to the company its coupon bonds for $35,000, in pursuance of the vote at the first-named election, and also its coupon bonds for $15,000, pursuant to the above vote at the same time place, payable in 10, 15, and 20 years, as aforesaid. The present suit is upon bonds and coupons of the latter issue. A demurrer to a special plea setting forth these facts was overruled, and, the plaintiff electing to stand by the demurrer, the action was dismissed.

From this statement of the case, it is apparent that the judgment below is inconsistent with the decision in Anderson v. Santa Anna. It is not disputed that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 cases
  • Weber v. City of Helena
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • March 19, 1931
    ...legislative sanction previously given. Grenada County v. Brogden, 112 U. S. 261, 5 S. Ct. 125, 28 L. Ed. 704;Bolles v. Brimfield, 120 U. S. 760, 7 S. Ct. 736, 30 L. Ed. 786;Springfield Safe–Deposit & Trust Co. v. City of Attica, 29 C. C. A. 214, 85 F. 387. The objection that the act in ques......
  • Anderson County Road Dist. No. 8 v. Pollard
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • June 4, 1927
    ...266 U. S. 379, 45 S. Ct. 136, 69 L. Ed. 335; Anderson v. Santa Anna, 116 U. S. 356, 6 S. Ct. 413, 29 L. Ed. 633; Bolles v. Brimfield, 120 U. S. 762, 7 S. Ct. 736, 30 L. Ed. 786; County of Leavenworth v. Barnes, 94 U. S. 70, 24 L. Ed. 63; Schneck v. Jeffersonville, 152 Ind. 204, 52 N. E. 212......
  • Russell Inv. Corporation v. Russell
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 20, 1938
    ... ... 2, ... 775, 794; 12 C. J. 1091; 61 C. J. 1238, 1364; 6 R. C. L. 321; ... Bolles v. Brimfield, 120 U.S. 759, 7 S.Ct. 736, 30 ... L.Ed. 786; Street v. United States, 133 U.S ... 309, 33 L.Ed. 631; Turpin v. Lemon, 187 U.S ... 51, 23 S.Ct. 20, 47 L.Ed. 70; Sykes v. Town of ... Columbus, 55 Miss. 115; Powers v. Penny, 59 ... Miss. 5; Nevin v. Bailey, [182 So ... ...
  • State ex rel. Craighead County v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • February 11, 1924
  • 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