County of Schuyler v. Thomas

Decision Date01 October 1878
Citation98 U.S. 169,25 L.Ed. 88
PartiesCOUNTY OF SCHUYLER v. THOMAS
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. George W. McCrary for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. A. J. Baker and Mr. F. T. Hughes, contra.

MR. JUSTICE HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.

Thomas, the plaintiff below, recovered a judgment for the amount of certain bonds and coupons held by him, which were issued in the year 1871 by the county of Schuyler, in the State of Missouri. He was an honest purchaser of the bonds, without knowledge of vice or defect in their issue.

The following is a copy of one of the bonds:——

'Know all men by these presents, that the county of Schuyler, in the State of Missouri, acknowledges itself indebted to the Missouri, Iowa, and Nebraska Railway Company, a corporation existing under and by virtue of the laws of the States of Missouri and Iowa, formed by consolidation of the Alexandria and Nebraska City Railroad Company (formerly Alexandria and Bloomfield Railroad Company), of the State of Missouri, and the Iowa Southern Railway Company, of the State of Iowa, in the sum of $1,000, which sum the said county hereby promises to pay to the said Missouri, Iowa, and Nebraska Railway Company, or bearer, at the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, in New York, on the first day of September, A.D. 1891, together with interest thereon from the thirty-first day of December, 1871, at the rate of eight per cent per annum, which interest shall be payable annually in the city of New York, on the thirty-first day of December in each year, as the same shall become due, on the presentation of the coupons hereto annexed. This bond being issued under and pursuant to orders of the county court of said Schuyler County, for subscription to the stock of the Missouri, Iowa, and Nebraska Railway Company, as authorized by an act of the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, entitled 'An Act to incorporate the Alexandria and Bloomfield Railroad Company,' approved Feb. 9, 1857.

'In testimony whereof, the said county of Schuyler has executed this bond by the presiding justice of the county court of said county, under the order of said court, signing his name hereto, and the clerk of said court, under the order thereof, attesting the same and affixing thereto the seal of said court.

'This done at the town of Lancaster, in the county of Schuyler, in the State of Missouri, this first day of September, A.D. 1871.

'WILLIAM CASPER,

'Presiding Justice of the County Court of Schuyler County, Missouri.

'Attest: D. T. TRUITT,

SEAL SCHUYLER COUNTY COURT, MISSOURI.

'Clerk of the County Court of Schuyler County, Missouri.

'Countersigned and delivered this seventeenth day of May, 1872.

'M. BAKER, Trustee.'

The legality of the bonds is denied.

1st, It is contended by the county of Schuyler that there was no authority in the company, as incorporated in 1857, to locate its track through or in the county of Schuyler; that as the authority to subscribe and issue bonds depended on the power to locate, there was no authority to subscribe for stock or issue the bonds of the county.

The act to incorporate the Alexandria and Bloomfield Railroad Company, approved Feb. 9, 1857, contained the following provisions:——

'It shall be lawful for the county court of any county, in which any part of the route of said railroad may be, to subscribe to the stock of said company, . . . and issue the bonds of said county to raise funds to pay the stock thus subscribed.'

'SECT. 8. Said company shall have full power to survey, locate, and construct a railroad from the city of Alexandria, in the county of Clark, in the direction of Bloomfield, in the State of Iowa, to such point on the northern boundary line of the State of Missouri as shall be agreed upon by said company, and a company authorized on the part of the State of Iowa, to construct a railroad to intersect the road authorized to be constructed by the provisions of this act, at the most practicable point on said State line, . . . and may select such route as may be deemed most advantageous.'

Bloomfield, as we learn by the maps in evidence, lies in a northwesterly direction from Alexandria.

Schuyler County is also in a direction from Alexandria northwesterly as to a portion of it, and more nearly northerly as to another portion of it. As a matter of fact, an inspection of the maps furnishes evidence (and they make a part of the record on which our judgment is to be formed) that there is authority to include a portion of Schuyler County in the description of a course northwesterly from Alexandria and in the direction of Bloomfield. These maps and the geography of the State inform us that this road could be so located as to reach the immediate vicinity of Bloomfield, with but little less variation from a direct course than the line through Luray and Upton, which was first adopted.

But a straight line is not required by the statute, nor a line having the fewest curves or angles, nor is the point of crossing the State line fixed or prescribed. The most practicable and advantageous line is to be adopted, depending upon all the elements entering into the economy, productiveness, and local advantages which would be sought by prudent men in determining such a question.

This subject was discussed in County of Callaway v. Foster, 93 U. S. 567. As there intimated, we are of the opinion that the legislature, by the expression, 'any county in which any part of the route of said railroad may be,' used as it was with reference to a road not yet surveyed or located, intended to give a broad latitude, and to embrace all the counties through or into which it was possible that the said road could be located. These statutes are to be construed as they were intended to be understood when they were passed, twenty years since. The after-wisdom, obtained by unfortunate results, cannot justly be applied in their interpretation. A construction may now be sought which will avoid the payment of the debts contracted for building the road. Then every inducement was presented to make subscriptions and obtain the money. Little respect would have been paid to the careful legislator or the strict interpreter of the law, who, twenty years ago, had doubted the power of these counties to make the subscription in question.

We see nothing in the law or in the necessary facts of the case, affecting the power in the first instance of the county of Schuyler to subscribe to the stock of the Alexandria and Bloomfield Railroad Company, and to issue its bonds to raise the funds to pay such subscription.

2d, It is further alleged that in the year 1866 the Alexandria and Bloomfield road was permanently located...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Adams v. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • November 22, 1898
    ...... March,. 1899. [24 So. 201] . . FROM. the circuit court of Hinds county, first district, HON. ROBERT POWELL, Judge. . . The. state revenue agent, ...R. v. Alsbrook, . 146 U.S. 279. See also analogous questions, Scolland v. Thomas, 94 U.S, 682; Schuyler Co. v. Thomas, 98. U.S. 169; Wilson v. Salamanco, 99 U.S. 499;. ......
  • Mississippi State Tax Commission v. Brown
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 19, 1940
    ...... . APPEAL. from the chancery court of Hinds county HON. V. J. STRICKER,. Chancellor. . . Suit by. J. T. Brown against the Mississippi ...Union Pac. R. Co., 91 U.S. 72, 23 L.Ed. 224; Schuyler County v. Thomas, 98 U.S. 169, 25 L.Ed. 88; Com. v. Erie & N. E. R. Co., 27 Pa. 339, 67 Am. ......
  • Manry v. Robison
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • December 22, 1932
    ...of its enactment. 25 Ruling Case Law, p. 959, § 214; United States v. Union Pac. R. Co., 91 U. S. 72, 23 L. Ed. 224; Schuyler County v. Thomas, 98 U. S. 169, 25 L. Ed. 88; Platt v. Union Pac. R. Co., 99 U. S. 48, 63, 25 L. Ed. Although we adopted the common law as a rule of decision in 1840......
  • Board of Com'rs of Henderson County v. Travelers' Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • February 2, 1904
    ...... the general law. County of Livingston v. The Bank,. 128 U.S. 102, 9 Sup.Ct. 18, 32 L.Ed. 359; Scotland County. v. Thomas, 94 U.S. 688, 24 L.Ed. 219. The railroad. passed through Henderson county. Under a Constitution of the. state of North Carolina adopted in 1868, a ... McKenzie, 110 U.S. 686, 4 Sup.Ct. 184, 28 L.Ed. 285;. [128 F. 822] . County of Ray v. Vansycle, 96 U.S. 675, 24 L.Ed. 800; County of Schuyler v. Thomas, 98 U.S. 169, 25. L.Ed. 88. In the County of Scotland v. Thomas, 94. U.S. 688, 24 L.Ed. 219, the court construed a section of 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