Quinlan v. Green County, Ky.
Decision Date | 19 December 1907 |
Docket Number | 1,440. |
Citation | 157 F. 33 |
Parties | QUINLAN v. GREEN COUNTY, KY. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
This is an action brought by the plaintiff in error to recover the contents of certain bonds and coupons alleged to have been issued by the defendant in error in 1872, in payment, with other like bonds, for shares of stock of the Cumberland & Ohio Railroad Company. The plaintiff claims to be the holder for value and owner of the bonds and coupons which are the subject of the controversy. By stipulation, the case was tried by the court without a jury. The court made a finding of facts, and declared its conclusion of law thereon.
The result of its conclusion was that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and judgment was entered accordingly. The plaintiff thereupon sued out this writ of error.
By an act of the Legislature of Kentucky, passed February 24, 1869 the above-named railroad company was incorporated and authorized to construct a railroad from a point on the Ohio river to a point on the boundary line between Kentucky and Tennessee. Acts of Kentucky 1869, vol. 1, p. 463, c. 1578. In the course of its authorized route was Green county, the defendant in this suit. With a view, apparently, to enable the counties along its route to aid the railroad company in the construction of its road, authority for that purpose was conferred by the act as follows: And it was further provided that the application for such proceedings might be made to the judge of the county 'court instead of the court; whereupon he was vested with the same power. And the railroad company was authorized to 'receive subscriptions of stock to their company by individuals, towns, cities, counties, or other corporations, whether payable in money or other things, with such terms and times of payment, conditions annexed, and kind of payment that may be set forth in the subscription.'
On June 17, 1869, upon the request of the commissioners of the railroad company, above named, the judge of the county court entered the order following:
The election was held. The vote was in favor of the proposition and was so properly certified. Thereafterwards, and on June 3, 1870, the county judge made an order, wherein after reciting the proceedings above recited, he says: 'I * * * do hereby subscribe for two hundred and fifty thousand dollars of the capital stock of the said Cumberland & Ohio Railroad Company for and on behalf of said county of Green, which subscription is to be paid in the bonds of said county as prescribed in said order of submission, and this subscription is made with the conditions set out in the order of this court ordering said election and now of record in the office of this county. ' On October 12, 1871, the county judge ordered the bonds to be printed. The bonds, of which these in suit were a part, were issued and delivered to the railroad company during the succeeding year, 1872, the bulk of them on or about August 15th, on which day the county judge made the following order:
Thereupon the $250,000.00 of the capital stock of the railroad company was delivered to the county, which has since been retained and owned by it. For a time the county raised by tax and paid the interest accruing on the bonds, but thereafter it refused to recognize their validity, and refused to make further payment. The plaintiff is the bona fide holder for value of the bonds and coupons in suit, but had notice that the railroad had not been built further than from the north line of said county to Greensburg, which is about one-quarter of the way through the county. As to this latter fact, it may be noted in this connection that only $150,000 of the proceeds of the bonds had been expended by the Cumberland & Ohio Railroad Company in the construction of the road, and this was on that part of the road north of Greensburg. This expenditure did not complete that portion of the road, but it was completed by the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company under the stipulation in a lease to it of its road by the Cumberland & Ohio Railroad Company, but at what cost does not appear. In respect to the conditions of the subscription for stock to pay which these bonds were voted, the facts were these: In 1868 at an election in Green county it had been voted to subscribe for $300,000 of the stock of the Elizabethtown & Tennessee Railroad Company, to be paid for in the bonds of the county. Upon making a record of this election the county court made the following order: 'It is now therefore ordered that the clerk of this court, for and on behalf of the county of Green, make said subscription on the terms specified in the order submitting the question to a vote as aforesaid. ' But nothing further was ever done in regard to such a subscription either by the county or the Elizabethtown & Tennessee Railroad Company. No stock was issued to the county or bonds issued to the railroad company. Some further incidental facts will be hereafter mentioned in the opinion in the discussion of the questions involved in the controversy. The bonds in suit, except the numbers given to each bond and the amount therein specified, were in the form following:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Barrett
... ... 731, 734, 68 C.C.A. 89, and opinion of ... Judge (now Mr. Justice) Lurton in Quinlan v. Green ... County, 157 F. 33, 48, 84 C.C.A. 537, 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) ... 849. This is in direct ... ...
-
Thomas v. Green County
...bonds and coupons of the same issue as those which were the subject of the suit in Quinlan v. Green County (recently decided by this court) 157 F. 33. The cause tried by the court without a jury, and the findings of fact and of law were the same in all material respects as in the other case......
-
Graham v. Quinlan
...court to the Supreme Court concerning the bonds was answered. The Quinlan Case, as decided by this court, is reported in 157 F. 33, 84 C.C.A. 537, 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 849, and the Thomas Case, as decided here, appears in 159 F. 89 C.C.A. 405. The judgment recovered in the latter case is the on......
-
Caldwell & Co.'s Ancillary Receiver v. Landrum
... ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court, McLean County ... Action ... by Rutledge Smith, ancillary receiver of Caldwell & Company, ... v. Taylor County, 5 Ky. Law Rep. 315; Osenton v ... Carter County, 5 Ky. Law Rep. 686; Quinlan v. Green ... County (C. C. A.) 157 F. 33, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 849; ... Shortell v. Green County, ... ...