Gelpcke v. City of Dubuque

Decision Date01 December 1863
Citation1 Wall. 220,68 U.S. 220,17 L.Ed. 530
PartiesGelpcke v. City of Dubuque
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

THIS suit differed from 80—the principal one—only in the fact that the bonds of the city, which in this case bore date 1st September, 1855, were issued prior to the passage of the act of 28th January, 1857, specially authorizing the city to subscribe to the railroads for which the bonds in No. 80 had been subsequently given. The bonds rested in this case (No. 81), therefore, on the charter of the city (approved February 24, 1847), authorizing it 'to borrow money for public purposes,' and on an act passed 25th January, 1855, before the bonds were issued, one section of which enacted that whenever 'any company shall have received, or may hereafter receive, the bonds of any city or county upon subscription of stock by such city or county, such bonds may bear an interest at a rate not exceeding ten per cent., and may be sold by the company at such discount as may be deemed expedient,' and which enacted also (§ 3), that 'the provisions of this act shall apply to any railroad bonds which have been heretofore issued, as well as to those which may hereafter be issued.'

Mr. JUSTICE SWAYNE, after stating the difference between the case and No. 80, and quoting this act, thus delivered the opinion of the court:

'In this act it is clearly implied that cities have authority to subscribe for railroad stock, and to issue their bonds in payment of it. What is implied in a statute is as much a part of it as what is expressed. (United States v. Babbitt, 1 Black, 61.) Considering the subject in the light of these acts, we entertain no doubt that the city possessed the power to issue these bonds.'

JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED.

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Chouteau v. The Missouri Pacific Railway Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 28, 1894
    ... ... twenty lots situated in Kansas City, Missouri. In June, 1850, ... he, being seized of the fee in the premises, conveyed without ... what is expressed." United States v. Babbit , 66 ... U.S. 55, 1 Black 55, 17 L.Ed. 94; Gelpcke v ... Dubuque , 68 U.S. 220, 1 Wall. 220, 17 L.Ed. 530; ... Stradling v. Morgan , Plowd. 199; 2 ... ...
  • Winslow Brothers Company v. McCully Stone Mason Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 18, 1902
    ... ...           Appeal ... from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. P. R. Flitcraft, ...           ... Affirmed ... Railroad, 122 Mo. 389; United States v ... Babbitt, 1 Black 55; Gelcke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall ... 220; Bishop on Contracts (Enlarged Ed.), 241, 253 and 439 ...           ... ...
  • Am. Ins. Co. of Newark v. Rodenhouse
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • November 26, 1912
    ...a part of it as what is expressed.' Wilson County v. Third Nat. Bank of Nashville, 103 U.S. 770 [26 L. Ed. 488]; Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 68 U.S. 220, 1 Wall. 220 [17 L. Ed. 530]. And this maxim is equally applicable to the interpretation of contracts. The interpretation contended for by the def......
  • Utter v. Franklin
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • March 22, 1901
    ...103 U.S. 806; Dows v. Elmwood, 34 F. 114; Grenada v. Brogden, 112 U.S. 261, 5 S.Ct. 125; Jasper County v. Ballou, 102 U.S. 745; McMillen v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 220; State v. Hoffman, 35 Ohio St. 437; Dentzel Waldie, 30 Cal. 145; People v. Supervisors, 20 Mich. 104; May v. Holbridge, 23 Wis. 97......
  • 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