County of Green v. Conners
Decision Date | 29 October 1883 |
Citation | 109 U.S. 104,27 L.Ed. 872,3 S.Ct. 69 |
Parties | COUNTY OF GREEN v. CONNERS |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Henry C. Young, for plaintiff in error.
Jas. S. Botsford and R. G. Ingersoll, for defendant in error.
Nearly every point in this case has already been decided by this court in the cases of County of Callaway v. Foster, 93 U. S. 567; County of Scotland v. Thomas, 94 U. S. 682; County of Henry v. Nicolay, 95 U. S. 619; County of Schuyler v. Thomas, 98 U. S. 169; County of Cass v. Gillett, 100 U. S. 585; City of Louisiana v. Taylor, 105 U. S. 454; and County of Ralls v. Douglass, 105 U. S. 728. In the case last cited we referred to the previous cases, and to the cases in Missouri which they followed, and said:
From the views thus expressed we are not disposed to swerve.
One point taken in the present case may not have been presented in any of the cases cited, to-wit, that the rights, privileges, and franchises of the Kansas City & Cameron Railroad Company were not expressly declared to pass over to the company with which it might become consolidated by the law authorizing such consolidation. This law was passed March 11, 1867, and declared as follows:
'It shall be lawful and competent for said company to make such arrangement with any other railroad company to furnish equipments, and to run and manage its railroad, as it may deem expedient and find necessary, or to lease the same, or to consolidate it with any other company upon such terms as may be deemed just and proper.'
In the 'finding of facts' made by the court it is, among other things, found as follows:
'That under the provisions of an act of the general assemby of the state of Missouri, approved May 11, 1867, entitled, etc., the said corporation, then known as the Kansas City & Cameron Railroad Company, on the twenty-first day of February, in the year 1870, was consolidated with the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
First Nat. Bank v. Obion County
...105 U. S. 278, 26 L. Ed. 1090; Thompson v. Perrine, 106 U. S. 589, 591, 1 S. Ct. 564, 568, 27 L. Ed. 298; Green County v. Conners, 109 U. S. 104, 3 S. Ct. 69, 27 L. Ed. 872; Anderson v. Santa Anna, 116 U. S. 356, 361, 6 S. Ct. 413, 29 L. Ed. 633; German Savings Bank v. Franklin County, 128 ......
-
State v. O'Neil
...an amendment of the law by means of a legislative enactment.” The following cases also support this doctrine: Green County v. Conness, 109 U. S. 104, 3 Sup. Ct. 69, 27 L. Ed. 872;Olcott v. Fond du Lac County Sup'rs, 16 Wall. 689, 21 L. Ed. 386;Fairfield v. Gallatin County, 100 U. S. 52, 25 ......
-
Alan v. Wayne County
...bonds to be paid according to the tenor of the obligations cannot be impaired by the holding of this opinion, Green County v. Conness, 109 U.S. 104, 3 S.Ct. 69, 27 L.Ed. 872 (1883); Gentzler v. Constantine Village Clerk, 320 Mich. 394, 31 N.W.2d 668 (1948); 15 McQuillin, Municipal Corporati......
-
State Ex Rel. Daniel v. Brd. River Power Co
...that the franchises and privileges of each continue to exist in respect to the several roads so consolidated." Green County v. Conness, 109 U. S. 104, 3 S. Ct. 69, 70, 27 L. Ed. 872. "It will be observed that a consolidated company formed under this act acquires all the rights, privileges, ......