County of Moultrie v. Rockingham

Decision Date01 October 1875
Docket NumberSAVINGS-BANK,TEN-CENT
Citation23 L.Ed. 631,92 U.S. 631
PartiesCOUNTY OF MOULTRIE v. ROCKINGHAM
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. John R. Eden and Mr. W. J. Henry for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. S. M. Cullom, contra.

MR. JUSTICE STRONG delivered the opinion of the court.

This case differs very materially from Town of Concord v. Portsmouth Savings-Bank, supra, p. 625. We there held that the bonds were void because the legislative authority to issue them as a donation to the railroad company had been annulled by the constitution of the State before the donation was made. In the present case the authority exercised was given to the county by the act of March 26, 1869, incorporating the railroad company. The tenth section of the act was as follows:——

'The board of supervisors of Moultrie County are hereby authorized to subscribe to the capital stock of said company, to an amount not exceeding $80,000, and to issue the bonds of the county therefor, bearing interest at a rate not exceeding ten per cent per annum, said bonds to be issued in such denominations and to mature at such times as the board of supervisors may determine: Provided, that the same shall not be issued until the said road shall be opened for traffic between the city of Decatur and the town of Sullivan aforesaid.'

No approving popular vote was required.

It is not to be doubted that this section gave to the county complete authority to make a subscription to the capital stock of the company. The power was fettered by no conditions or limitations, except as to the amount which might be subscribed; but the payment of the subscription was directed to be postponed until the railroad should be opened. And, of course, as a greater power includes every constituent part of it, the legislative act empowered the board of supervisors to agree to subscribe preparatory to an actual subscription. The power thus granted was never revoked, unless it was by the new constitution of the State, which did not take effect prior to July 2, 1870. Whatever was done in pursuance of the power before that time, if any thing was, could not be affected by the constitution, subsequently adopted. Subscriptions, or contracts to subscribe, made in pursuance of it before it was abrogated, remained binding; for a constitution can no more impair the obligation of a contract than ordinary legislation can. It must be conceded, that, had no subscription been made, or engagement to subscribe entered into, before the new constitution took effect, none could have been made after. But the special finding of facts shows that one was made in 1869. On the 16th of December of that year, the board of supervisors met and informally resolved to subscribe $80,000 to the capital stock of the railroad company; and the resolutions were referred to a lawyer, to be put in form before being recorded on the records of the board. They were accordingly prepared from minutes furnished by the chairman of the board, and entered by the clerk upon the records, as of the date of the December meeting of the board, and duly attested. This must have been done prior to the first Tuesday in March, 1870. The record, as it appears under date of Dec. 14, 1869, is as follows:——

'And it is further ordered by the board of supervisors of Moultrie County, that, under and by virtue of the authority conferred upon said board by an act approved March 26, A.D. 1869, entitled 'An Act to incorporate the Decatur, Sullivan, and Mattoon Railroad Company,' the county of Moultrie subscribed to the capital stock of the Decatur, Sullivan, and Mattoon Railroad Company the sum of $80,000 to aid in the construction of a railroad by said company, in pursuance of their charter.

'And be it further ordered by the board of supervisors aforesaid, that, when said railroad shall be 'open for traffic' between the city of Decatur and the town of Sullivan aforesaid, there be issued $80,000 of the bonds of said county, in denominations of not less than $500, payable to said company, drawing interest, to be paid annually, at the rate of eight per cent per annum; the principal to be due and payable ten years after date, or sooner, at the option of the county; and that said bonds be delivered to said railroad company in full payment of the subscription of said county so made as aforesaid.'

It is true, there was no further order of this board to enter the resolutions of record, but it was the clerk's duty to make the entry. The substance of them had been adopted. They required no further action except to put them in form. No further action appears to have been contemplated. They remain of record still, and the board has never taken any action to correct the record. On the contrary, it has been recognized by subsequent action. At the December meeting of 1872, a special committee was appointed to examine the records of subscriptions of railroad donations, and report. The committee did report on the 25th of December, 1872, that the subscription of $80,000, under the act of the general assembly of March 26, 1869, to aid in the construction of the Decatur, Sullivan, and Mattoon Railroad, was in accordance with law. Under this action of the board, and the report of the committee, the bonds were delivered. It is impossible, therefore, to doubt that the resolutions adopted in December, 1869, as recorded, must be treated as the action of the board at that time. And, if so, they amounted to a subscription to the stock of the company, and created an obligation for the payment of the subscription in county bonds. It is true no subscription was made on the books of the railroad company until July, 1871, when one was made by Mr. Titus, chairman of the board, without any express authority, and then made for the purpose of enabling him to vote at an election. But a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Hughes County, S.D., v. Livingston
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • October 9, 1900
    ... ... 6, 21 L.Ed. 272; Marcy v. Oswego Tp., 92 ... U.S. 637, 23 L.Ed. 748; Town of Coloma v. Eaves, 92 ... U.S. 484, 23 L.Ed. 579; Moultrie Co. v. Rockingham ... Ten-Cent Sav. Bank, 92 U.S. 631, 23 L.Ed. 631; ... Commissioners v. Bolles, 94 U.S. 104, 24 L.Ed. 46; ... Commissioners ... ...
  • First Nat. Bank v. Obion County
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee
    • October 28, 1924
    ...L. Ed. 548; Kenicott v. Wayne County, 83 U. S. 452, 466, 21 L. Ed. 319; Coloma v. Eaves, 92 U. S. 484, 23 L. Ed. 579; Moultre County v. Bank, 92 U. S. 631, 23 L. Ed. 631; Marcy v. Oswego, 92 U. S. 637, 23 L. Ed. 748; Daviess County v. Huidekoper, 98 U. S. 98, 25 L. Ed. 112; Orleans v. Platt......
  • Flagg v. Sch. Dist. No. 70, Barnes Cnty.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • March 19, 1894
    ...523-527, 10 Sup. Ct. 333;Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147, 2 Sup. Ct. 391;Dixon Co. v. Field, 111 U. S. 83, 4 Sup. Ct. 315;Moultrie Co. v. Bank, 92 U. S. 631; Marcy v. Oswego Tp., Id. 637; Knox Co. v. Aspinwall, 21 How. 539;Coler v. School Tp. (N. D.) 55 N. W. 587-591. Some cases appear......
  • Lane v. Inhabitants of Town of Embden
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • June 7, 1881
    ... ... Lardner, 2 ... Wall. 110; Commissioners, & c. v. Clark, 94 U.S ... 278; Cromwell v. County of Sac. 96 U.S. 51; 1 ... Dillon, Mun. Corp. § § 405, 418, 419; Aurora City v ... West, 7 ... 676; Block v. Commissioners, 99 U.S. 686; Mercer ... Co. v. Hacket, 1 Wall. 83; Moultrie v. Savings ... Bank, 92 U.S. 631; Moran v. Miami Co. 2 Black ... 722; Gelpeke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall ... ...
  • 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