Riddick v. Amelin

Decision Date30 April 1821
Citation1 Mo. 5
PartiesRIDDICK, CHAIRMAN, &c., v. AMELIN ET AL.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

ERROR FROM ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT.

COOK, J.

This is a writ of errer presecuted to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis county in an action of debt instituted by the plaintiff, Riddick, as chairman of the board of trustees of the town of St. Louis, on a bond executed by said defendant to said chairman. To which the defendants plead, that said Riddick and others, trustees of said town, fradulently represented that they had legal right to lease a certain ferry; and that said Riddick, as chairman of the board of trustees, was authorized to make and execute such lease; and that said bond was executed in consideration of a lease so made by said chairman to the defendant, Amelin. To this plea the plaintiff replied:--The act of the Territorial Legislature, authorizing the incorporation of towns; the order of the Court of St. Louis county incorporating the Town of St. Louis; the act of said Legislature authorizing said corporation to license and regulate ferries therein, and the ordinance of said corporation authorizing the chairman thereof to let and license such ferries. To which replication the defendants agreed to demur generally, and except to the legal force and effect of the statute authorizing the incorporation of the towns and to the right of said trustees to have of and from any person licensed to keep a ferry in said town, more than one hundred dollars for such license. In support of the first point, it is insisted by the defendants, that nothing short of sovereign power can create a corporation; that the Territorial Legislature was not sovereign, and hence draw the conclusion, that the act of that Legislature had not the force and effect of a law. That the power which creates a corporation must be sovereign as to that matter, is limited, absolute or controlable. If this be not true, sovereignty could exist nowhere but with the original power of making laws, which alone is absolute. The power to legislate on any subject is sovereign as to that matter, and to general sovereignty is incident the power of general legislation. It remains, then, only to ascertain the power of the Territorial Legislature, under the act of Congress creating that body, and vesting it with legislative powers. It seems to be admitted that Congress possessed the power of legislating for the Territory, with no other limitations than such as were imposed by the Federal Constitution; and it has not been denied that the establishment of the Territorial Government with legislative powers, was a constitutional exercise of the powers of Congress. If Congress could impart to the Territorial Legislature a power to legislate on any subject in relation to the government...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Potter v. Rio Arriba L. & C. Co.
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • January 31, 1888
    ...which they may do business or acquire property in the territory, subject to the control of congress. Williams v. Bank, 7 Wend. 539; Riddick v. Amelin, 1 Mo. 5; University v. State, 14 How. 268. The agreement between the complainant, Potter, and the defendant corporation was not made under t......
  • Kansas City v. Oppenheimer
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • May 25, 1903
    ... ... 9, sec. 16; City Charter, art. 3, ... sec. 1 (page 20), Tenth, (page 28), Thirty-first (page 29); ... St. Louis v. Ins. Co., 47 Mo. 146; Riddick v ... Amelin, et al., 1 Mo. 5; Petersburg v. Grigsby ... Metzker, 20 Ill. 205; Darling v. St. Paul, 19 ... Minn. 389; Kniper v. Louisville, 7 ... ...
  • People ex rel. Boardman v. City of Butte
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • August 31, 1881
    ...courts, and justices of the peace. 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. § 18, citing State v. Young, 3 Kan. 445;Burnes v. Atchison, 2 Kan. 454;Reddick v. Amelia, 1 Mo. 5;Vincennes Univ. v. Indiana, 14 How. 268;Vance v. Bank, 1 Blackf. 80;Myers v. Bank, 20 Ohio, 283;Deitz v. City of Central, 1 Colo. 323. The ......
  • Kirkpatrick v. State
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • May 15, 1868
    ...to the officers of the municipalities. 8 Ohio St., 289; 11 id. 99-100; 9 Ben. Mon., 332; Angel, 57, §§ 74, 75, p. 63, note 3; 1 Kyd 50; 1 Mo. 5. 6. territory lying adjacent could be annexed by the city of Lawrence, under article five, section six, of the laws of 1867, page 126. 7. The inter......
  • 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