Portsmouth Sav. Bank v. City of Springfield

• Decision Date: 01 January 1880
• Citation: 4 F. 276
• Parties: PORTSMOUTH SAVINGS BANK v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois

4 F. 276

PORTSMOUTH SAVINGS BANK v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. Illinois.

1880

DRUMMOND C.J.

All question of doubt in relation to the validity of these bonds should be answered in favor of their legality, because the city has recognized their validity repeatedly, and has paid the interest on them for a series of years. Therefore, under such circumstances as these, it should appear beyond all doubt that the issue of the bonds was void.

First as to the state-house bonds: By the act of February 25, 1867 the govenor was authorized to convey to the county of Sangamon and to the city of Springfield, for the use of the county and city, a piece of land known as the public square upon which was located the state house, for the sum of $200,000, and for the further consideration that the city and county should cause to be conveyed to the state a certain parcel of ground which was described. The law authorized the county of Sangamon and the city of Springfield to issue such bonds and levy such taxes as might be necessary to raise the sum of $200,000, and for the purchase of the tract of land which the city and county were required to convey to the state. In pursuance of this law some of the bonds in this case were issued by the city of Springfield, reciting that they were issued under this law, and for the purposes designated in the law.

The only objection of any force against these bonds is that, as the law authorized the governor to convey the particular lot of land called the state-house square to the county and city, and also authorized the county and the city to issue bonds, they have not been issued by the city and county jointly. It is true that the law might have been, and ought, perhaps, to have been, more specific in relation to the manner in which the bonds should be issued, but we have to take as it is and construe the law. Under the facts before the court it seems that the bonds in controversy here were issued by the city alone. Does that fact render this class of city bonds inoperative? I think not. There are many reasons why the construction which was given by the city and county authorities was proper, and such a construction as the statute warranted. There would undoubtedly be great difficulties and embarrassments connected with the issue and payment, by taxation or otherwise, of bonds given by the city and county jointly. They are separate and distinct corporations. True, the city is a corporation within the county of Sangamon, but in the administration of what are called governmental affairs, and nearly all of which concern the welfare of the people, the mayor and common council of the city have exclusive authority. The county has no jurisdiction and control over much which pertains to the welfare of the citizens of Springfield, so that it was not unnatural, I think, when this statute came to be considered by the citizens of the city and of the county, that an arrangement should be made between them by which they should sever in the bonds which the law contemplated should be given, so that a separate distribution should be made. That it was, in fact, made, does not particularly appear as to the funds to be raised, although it is admitted that an amicable arrangement was made between the respective corporations, and the bonds were issued by them separately. There might be other reasons mentioned which might cause the city and county to sever in the issue of bonds; but enough, I think, has been stated to show that it was not a violent or forced construction of this statute that the two corporations should issue bonds separately. Under all the circumstances of the case, can the city of Springfield be allowed, at this time, even admitting that there was a doubt in relation to the point above considered, to come in and contest the validity of these bonds, on the ground that they ought to have been jointly issued with the county? It ought to be clear that such issue was in violation of the statute, and that it was not competent for the city to exercise the powers it did. I think that is not the fact.

Many of the authorities which might be referred to would apply to a case like this. These bonds were issued under this statute. The interest on them has been paid, and their legality and validity never denied, for many years, and it would be hard on bona fide holders of these bonds to allow the city at this time to contest their validity.

As to the bonds given by the city called the water-works bonds, I have, during the argument, adverted to the statute upon the subject, but will now briefly recur to it to show that these bonds are also valid. They were issued under a statute of the state to incorporate the Springfield Water-works Company. By this statute there was a special...