St. Louis & Iron Mountain R.R. v. Clark

Decision Date31 July 1873
Citation53 Mo. 214
PartiesST. LOUIS AND IRON MOUNTAIN RAILROAD, Petitioner, v. GEO. B. CLARK, STATE AUDITOR, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

(The road from Pilot Knob to the Arkansas State line was an extension of the St. Louis & I. M. R. R.)

Petition for Mandamus.

Dryden & Dryden, for Petitioner.

I. The designation of the sum of $664,300 in § 8, was merely descriptive of the fund, and was not intended to limit it; and the intention should control the letter. (44 Mo., 283.)

II. But for the act of March, 1868, undoubtedly this sum when paid in would have belonged to the State interest fund, as provided by the General Statutes; but the act of 1868 worked a repeal of the General Statutes, so far as the purchase money of the St. Louis & Iron Mountain R. R. and the Cairo & Fulton R. R. were concerned, and appropriated this fund to the building of the Arkansas branch of the St. Louis & Iron Mountain R. R.

H. Clay Ewing, Attorney General, for Respondent.

I. There is no room for construction of the law. (18 Ohio St., 456; 42 N. Y., 259; 44 Mo., 283; 35 Cal., 634; 54 Penn., 86 and 180; 6 Wallace, 458.)

II. The 40,458 dollars having been derived from the sale of railroads and paid into the treasury, was required by the statute, (W. S., 1281, §§ 1, 3,) to be placed in the interest fund. It was so placed, and it is now inviolable. It has long since been appropriated to the payment of interest on State bonds. There is no law by which it can be drawn from the treasury, except for the purpose of paying State railroad bonds or interest.

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The relator prays for a mandamus to compel the State Auditor to draw his warrant for certain moneys, which, it is alleged, it is entitled to. The controversy grows out of the law confirming the railroad sale to Thomas Allen and his associates, approved March 17th, 1868. (Laws of 1868, p. 95.) The Cairo and Fulton R. R. and the St. Louis and Iron Mountain R. R. were sold by the State, the first for $350,000, and the second for $550,000, aggregating $900,000. At the close of the contracts of purchase in January, 1867, the purchasers paid $225,700 of the purchase money, leaving a balance of $674,300 to be paid on time, as provided for in the law by which the sale was made. Thomas Allen purchased from the vendees of the State, and took upon himself the obligations of the vendees of the State, and in January 1868, paid into the State Treasury the interest on this balance for the preceding year.

The act of 1868 above referred to, was then passed, and subsequent to its passage, Allen paid into the treasury another year's interest, amounting to $40,458.

This interest was placed in the State interest fund, and has been used in the payment of the railroad indebtedness of the State.

The 8th section of the act is as follows: “It is further provided, that the unpaid balance now due, or hereafter to become due, to the State for the purchase of the St. Louis and Iron Mountain R. R., and for the purchase of the Cairo and Fulton R. R. from Mr. Allen and his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • The State ex Informatione Crow v. Lincoln Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1898
    ... ... Stewart, Cunningham & Eliot for respondent St. Louis Trust ...          (1) The ... fundamental ... Endlich on Stat. Inter., sec. 6; Railroad v. Clark, ... 53 Mo. 214. Ambiguity or doubt as to corporate power ... ...
  • State ex rel. Butler v. Foster
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1905
    ...v. Ragsdale, 1 Hemp. (Fed.) 497; Virginia Coupon Case, 25 F. 641; Clarfoss v. State, 42 Ind. 403; Koch v. Bridges, 45 Miss. 247; Railroad v. Clark, 53 Mo. 214; Douglass Free-holders of Essex Co., 38 N.J. Law (9 Vroom) 214; Johnson v. Railroad, 49 N.Y. 455; Newell U.M. Co. v. Muxlow, 115 N.Y......
  • State v. Jaeger
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 12, 1911
    ...upon themselves the exercise of legislative powers. Kehr v. Columbia, 136 Mo. App., loc. cit. 329, 116 S. W. 428; St. Louis & Iron Mountain R. Co. v. Clark, 53 Mo. 214; Hyatt v. Taylor, 42 N. Y., loc. cit. 258; Benton v. Wickwire, 54 N. Y. 226. The law does not favor the ouster of jurisdict......
  • State v. Jaeger
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 12, 1911
    ... ... Louis Court of Appeals, and the opinion was there rendered ... 322, 116 S.W. 428; ... St. Louis & Iron Mountain R. Co. v. Clark, 53 Mo ... 214; Hyatt v. Taylor, ... ...
  • 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