Morrill v. Smith County
Decision Date | 19 December 1895 |
Docket Number | (No. 1,003.) |
Citation | 33 S.W. 899 |
Parties | MORRILL v. SMITH COUNTY. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Smith county; W. C. Buford, Special Judge.
Action by M. A. Morrill against Smith county to recover the amount of bonds issued in aid of the construction of a railroad. Judgment was rendered for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Dickson & Moroney, T. W. Gregory, and D. W. Doom, for appellant. James M. Edwards and H. C. & Cone Johnson, for appellee.
This action was brought, November 6, 1893, by the appellant against the county of Smith to recover on 23 coupon bonds, issued by it in aid of the construction of the Houston & Great Northern Railroad. The case was tried below without a jury, and resulted in a judgment in favor of the county.
Four hundred bonds were issued by the county at the same time, and all are of the same tenor, and differ only as to the number written on them. Each of them is as follows:
The first coupon to each bond was as follows:
The other coupons were all for forty dollars each, and of like tenor and contained the recital, "Which amount is to be indorsed in payment of the interest and principal of said bond." Indorsed on the bonds was the certificate of the comptroller of the state that they had been registered in his office. There was printed on the back of each bond a table, with ruled columns, for the entry each year, from 1874 to 1893, of the following items: "Amount Due on Bond," "Amount Paid" by "Coupon" and "Percentage of Principal" and "Total," and "Balance Due on Bond." The bonds involved in this suit are of the same issue, and are numbered from 82 to 95, inclusive, 185, 186, 187, 250, 298, 300, 301, and 302. They were issued by the county court of Smith county, pursuant to proceedings under an act of the legislature of the state of Texas, entitled "An act to authorize counties, cities and towns to aid in the construction of railroads and other works of internal improvement," approved April 12, 1871. Gen. Laws 12th Leg. (1st Sess.) p. 29.
On March 27, 1872, upon a petition presented to the county court by more than 50 free-holders of Smith county, asking for an election to take the opinion of the electors of the county on a proposition that said county should donate to the Houston & Great Northern Railroad Company the sum of $200,000, in bonds of Smith county, payable in installments of 20 years from the date of their delivery, bearing interest at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum, to be paid annually on the 1st day of January, the court made an order that such election be held. The proposition submitted to the electors of the county was to donate bonds as above specified The election was held at the time designated in the order of the county court, and on May 6, 1872, the court declared, as the result of the election, that the proposition had carried, and ordered that it be accepted, and in all things complied with. On May 26, 1873, at a session of the county court, Galusha A. Grow, the president of the Houston & Great Northern Railroad Company, made an application to the county court for the issue of the bonds which had been voted to the company by the electors of the county, and represented that the company had fully complied with all the conditions of the proposition prior to the 15th day of said month. On the next day (May 27th) the court entered an order which recited, inter alia, the above-mentioned application, and all the prior proceedings in the matter, and that it appeared that the company had accepted the proposition voted, and had completed the work in aid of which the donation was proposed, prior to the 15th day of May, 1873, and had by that time fully performed and complied with the conditions on which said donation was offered, and adjudged that the company was entitled to said donation on May 15, 1873, and to have the bonds then issued to them as of that date; levied a tax of ¾ of 1 per cent. on the assessed value of all the real and personal property situated in Smith county as a sufficient amount for the payment of the annual interest and a sinking fund of 2 per cent. per annum on said bonds, and directed the issuance of the bonds, the form of which was set out in the order. The recitals in the order, as entered in the minutes of the court, that the company had completed the work and complied with the conditions of the proposition and was entitled to said donation, were erased, as were also the words "three-fourths of one per cent." in the tax levy. At the same term, on May 29th, the court entered an order appointing a committee of three persons to investigate and report at the next term of the court as to the compliance by the company with the terms of the contract. The erasures were found by the trial judge to have been made at the direction of the court at the time the order was entered. At the next regular term of the court, on July 31st, an order was made appointing referees on the part of the county to whom, with others appointed by the company, the matter of the issuance of the bonds should be submitted, and on the next day the whole matter was continued until the next regular term of the court; the order reciting that a full court was not present, and that the members who were present were not satisfied to issue the bonds and coupons in the form demanded by the company. But at the next following term (October 2, 1873) an order was made which, without any reference to the prior orders above recited, levied a tax and directed the issuance of the bonds as follows: "Ordered by the court that an annual tax of one-half per cent. on the assessed value of the real and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. City of Memphis v. Hackman
...and when the officers executing them were such officers at the time the bonds bear date. Prettyman v. Supervisors, 19 Ill. 414; Morrell v. Smith Co., 33 S.W. 906; v. Galveston, 57 S.W. 1121; Yesler v. Seattle, 1 Wash. St. 322; Flagg et al. v. Palmyra, 33 Mo. 451; State v. Moore, 46 Neb. 592......
-
The State ex rel. Smith v. The Mayor
... ... 102 U.S. 278; City of Litchfield v. Ballou, 114 U.S ... 192; Gamewell Fire Alarm Co. v. Laporte, 96 F. 664, ... 102 F. 417; Lake County v. Rollings, 130 U.S. 662 ... (3) The judgment in case of Matters et al. v. City of Neosho ... is not res judicata upon the issues herein ... taxpayers against the municipality or its officers to which ... such owner is not a party. Town of Pana v. Bowler, ... 107 U.S. 529; Morrill v. Smith County (Tex.), 33 ... S.W. 899; 2 Van Fleet, Former Adj., sec. 570; Town of ... Lyons v. Cooledge, 89 Ill. 529; Mail v ... Maxwell, ... ...
-
State v. Hackman
...were such at the time the bonds were dated. Prettyman v. Supervisors, 19 Ill. 406, loc. cit. 414, 71 Am. Dec. 230; Morrill v. Smith County (Tex. Civ. App.) 33 S. W. 899, loc. cit. 906; Moller v. Galveston, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 693, 57 S. W. 1116, loc. cit. 1121; Yesler v. Seattle, 1 Wash. 308,......
-
McCarty v. Goodsman
... ... Appeal ... from District Court, Pierce County, A. G. Burr, J ... Affirmed ... ... Judgment of the trial ... Tracey, 14 Serg. & R. 311; ... Miles v. Kelly (Civ. App. 1894) 25 S.W. 724; ... Morrill v. Smith County (Civ. App. 1895) 33 S.W ... 899; 33 Century Dig. Limit. of Actions, §§ 280, ... ...