National Bank v. County of Yankton
Decision Date | 01 October 1879 |
Citation | 101 U.S. 129,25 L.Ed. 1046 |
Parties | NATIONAL BANK v. COUNTY OF YANKTON |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of Dakota Territory.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. S. W. Packard and Mr. James Grant for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Matt. H. Carpenter and Mr. James Coleman for the defendant in error.
By sect. 4 of the act to provide a temporary government for the Territory of Dakota, no one session of the legislative assembly shall exceed forty days (12 Stat. 239), and in 1869 Congress declared that the sessions of all territorial legislative assemblies should be biennial. 15 id. 300. The members of the legislative assembly of Dakota met on the 5th of December, 1870, and continued in regular session on all days, except Sundays, until Jan. 13, 1871, when they adjourned without day. The day of adjournment was called on the journals the fortieth day of the session, although there had been but thirty-five days of actual session for the transaction of business. On the 18th of April, 1871, the members of the legislature elected the preceding fall again assembled at the call of the acting governor of the Territory. After organizing themselves as a legislative assembly and proceeding to legislate for the Territory, they passed, among other acts, one entitled 'An Act to enable organized counties and townships to vote aid to any railroad, and to provide for the payment of the same.' Under this act the voters of Yankton County, on the 2d of September, 1871, voted to donate the Dakota Southern Railroad Company $200,000 in the bonds of the county. All the proceedings under which this vote was taken were conducted strictly according to the requirements of the law.
On the twenty-seventh day of May, 1872, the following act of Congress was approved and went into effect. 17 id. 162.
'An Act in Relation to the Dakota Southern Railroad Company.
'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the act passed by the legislative assembly of the Territory of Dakota, and approved by the governor on the twenty-first day of April, 1871, entitled 'An Act to enable organized counties and townships to vote aid to any railroad, and to provide for the payment of the same' be, and the same is hereby, disapproved and annulled, except in so far as herein otherwise provided. But the passage of this act shall not invalidate or impair the organization of the company heretofore organized for the construction of the Dakota Southern Railroad leading from Sioux City, Iowa, by way of Yankton, the capital of said Territory, to the west line of Bon Homme County, or any vote that has been or may be given by the counties of Union, Clay, Yankton, and Bon Homme, or any township granting aid to said railroad, or any subscription thereto, or any thing authorized by and that may have been done in pursuance of the provisions of the aforesaid act of the legislative assembly of said Territory towards the construction and completion of said railroad, and the said Dakota Southern Railroad Company, as organized under and in conformity to the acts of the legislative assembly of said Territory, is hereby recognized and declared to be a legal and valid corporation; and the provisions of the act of the legislative assembly first aforesaid, so far as the same authorize, and for the purpose of validating any vote of aid and subscriptions to said company for the construction, completion, and equipment of the main stem of said railroad, between the termini aforesaid, are hereby declared to be and remain in full force, but no further, and for no other purpose whatsoever.
' .
After the passage of this act, the bonds voted were delivered by the county commissioners to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hueter v. Kruse
...including the power to "make a void Act of the territorial government valid, and a valid Act void." Nat'l Bank v. Cnty. of Yankton , 101 U.S. 129, 133, 25 L.Ed. 1046 (1880) ; see also Sere v. Pitot , 10 U.S. 332, 336-37, 6 Cranch 332, 3 L.Ed. 240 (1810) ; Am. Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton......
-
Samuel Downes v. George Bidwell
...... Jones , 5 How. 343, 12 L. ed. 181, and in Miners' Bank v. Iowa ex rel. District Prosecuting Attorney , 12 How. 1, 13 L. ed. ...The incidents of these powers are those of national sovereignty and belong to all independent governments. The power to make ... Page 269 . effect First Nat. Bank v. Yankton County , 101 U. S. 129, 25 L. ed. 1046; Murphy v. Ramsey , 114 U. S. ......
-
Donoghue v. United States Hitz v. Same, s. 729
...which quite as well could have been called a 'colony' or a 'province.' 'The Territories,' it was said in First National Bank v. County of Yankton, 101 U.S. 129, 133, 25 L.Ed. 1046, 'are but political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States.' Since the Constitution provide......
-
Examining Board of Engineers, Architects and Surveyors v. Flores De Otero
...to govern Territories are broad. District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U.S., at 430-431, 93 S.Ct., at 609; National Bank v. County of Yankton, 101 U.S. 129, 133, 25 L.Ed. 1046 (1880); American Insurance Co. v. Canter, 26 U.S. 516, 1 Pet. 511, 542, 7 L.Ed. 242 (1828). And in the case of Puerto......
-
The Property Clause, Article Iv, and Constitutional Structure
...also to contest federal ownership of public lands within states. See infra Part III.C. 118. See, e.g., Nat'l Bank v. County of Yankton, 101 U.S. 129, 133 (1879) ("The Territories are but political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States. Their relation to the general gove......
-
WHAT IS A "STATE"? THE INCONSISTENT CONSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES.
...(80) See Am. Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. 511, 546 (1828). (81) See id. at 545-46. (82) Nat'l Bank v. County of Yankton, 101 U.S. 129, 133 (83) See Court Role and Structure, U.S. CTS., https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure [https://perma.cc/B6LJ-......
-
THE TERRITORIES UNDER TEXT, HISTORY, AND TRADITION.
...to service"). (150.) Reynolds, 98 U.S. at 154. (151.) Id. (152.) LEIBOWITZ, supra note 57, at 7. (153.) Nat'l Bank v. County of Yankton, 101 U.S. 129, 133 (154.) See generally Mary K. Campbell, Mr. Peay's Horses: The Federal Response to Mormon Polygamy, 1854-1887, 13 YALE J.L. & FEMINIS......
-
Delaying Puerto Rican Self-Determination: How the Contradictory Mandates of Public Law 600 and PROMESA Undermine America's Founding Principle.
...' authority under the Territorial] Clause may 'continue until granted away.'" Id. at 1679 (quoting Nat'l Bank v. Cnty. of Yankton, 101 U.S. 129, 133 (105.) See Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act [section] 2 (providing PROMESA's effective date); id. [section] 101 (......