Stone v. Winn
Citation | 165 Ky. 9,176 S.W. 933 |
Parties | STONE ET AL. v. WINN ET AL. |
Decision Date | 26 May 1915 |
Court | Court of Appeals of Kentucky |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Estill County.
Suit for injunction by J. D. Winn and others against J. C. Stone and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to dismiss the petition.
The city of Louisville is situated in Jefferson county.
Burnam & Burnam, of Richmond, and Willis, Todd & Bond, of Shelbyville, for appellants.
Geo. W Gourley, of Beattyville, and Hazelrigg & Hazelrigg and J. P Hobson & Son, all of Frankfort, for appellees.
This suit was brought by the 15 appellees, as taxpayers of Estill county, to enjoin the fiscal court of that county from levying a tax to pay the principal or the interest on 50 bonds of the aggregate face value of $50,000, issued by Estill county in 1888 to the Richmond, Nicholasville, Irvine & Beattyville Railroad Company, upon the ground that the charter provisions of the railroad company had not been complied with, and that the election which authorized the bonds had been carried by fraud. The action was brought by the appellees in their own behalf and in behalf of the other taxpayers of the county against the appellants, J. C. Stone J. C. Bright, and T. J. Curtis, who own 47 of said bonds. The circuit court granted the relief asked, by enjoining the levy of the tax and directing the surrender and cancellation of the bonds and the interest coupons attached thereto. From that judgment the defendants prosecute this appeal.
The pleadings in the case are quite voluminous, and in order to get a clear understanding of the issues it will be necessary to set out the facts somewhat in detail.
The Richmond, Nicholasville, Irvine & Beattyville Railroad Company, which will hereinafter be called the Railroad Company for brevity, was incorporated by an act of the General Assembly of Kentucky, approved March 10, 1888 (Acts 1887-88, vol. 1, p. 913).
The provisions of the incorporating act, upon which this case turns, are sections 5, 8, 9, and 10. Section 5 of the act authorized the company to construct a railroad from a point on the Jessamine county line adjoining Woodford county, near Keane in Jessamine county, and thence southeastwardly through Nicholasville and Madison county to Richmond; and thence eastwardly through the counties of Madison, Estill, and Lee to a point at or near Beattyville on the forks of the Kentucky river, in Lee county. The company was given the powers usually granted to railroad companies. Section 8 authorized either of said counties to subscribe to the capital stock of the Railroad Company, and to pay therefor in the negotiable, 30 year, 6 per cent. bonds of the county. The bonds could be issued only upon the majority vote of the people of the county, and pursuant to an application made to the county court by a petition of 50 resident taxpayers requesting that the question of subscribing to the capital stock of the Railroad Company be submitted to the voters of the county. Section 9 is largely administrative in its features, and provided for the canvassing of the vote, the entering of an order of subscription in behalf of the county by the county judge to the capital stock of the railroad company, and the execution of the bonds of the county by the county judge and the county clerk. It further provided that the county judge should order the bonds to be deposited with a trustee to be held in escrow; that the Railroad Company might deposit the certificate for capital stock of said company, agreed to be given in exchange for said bonds, with such trustee; and that the said bonds should be delivered to the Railroad Company or to its order, when it should be entitled to the same under the terms and conditions of the subscription submitted to said county. Section 9 contained this further final provision:
"It shall not be lawful for * * * Estill [county] to subscribe a greater amount than $100,000.00; * * * and it shall not be" liable "for any of said bonds to be delivered to" such "railroad company, except as the road is completed, in accordance with the order of submission made by said county court."
Section 10, in full, reads as follows:
By an order entered July 19, 1888, the Estill county court submitted to the people of the county the question of subscribing $100,000 to the capital stock of the Railroad Company and the issual of bonds in that amount to pay for the stock; said order of submission further providing, as follows:
The election was held on August 11, 1888, and resulted in favor of the subscription. Bonds of the par value of $100,000 were executed, and, pursuant to section 8 of the charter, they were placed in the hands of Edward Conroy, as trustee, who executed a bond as required by section 9 of the charter. The Railroad Company, through the instrumentality of the Ohio Valley Contract & Improvement Company, began the construction of the road within six months after the subscription; and, by the terms of the order of submission it had 3 years and 6 months, from August 28, 1888, that is, until February 28 1892, in which to complete the road to a point within 600 yards of the limits of the town of Irvine, the county seat of Estill county. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Black v. Elkhorn Coal Corp.
...... proper that a class suit should be brought, and a decree. therein is binding on all of the class. Stone v. Winn, 165 Ky. 9, 176 S.W. 933. Moreover, it is settled. in this jurisdiction that the trustee represents all the. bondholders, and a judgment ......
-
Minneapolis, St. Paul, & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. v. Washburn Lignite Coal Co.
...65 P. 244; State v. Hartford St. R. Co., 56 A. 506; Bank of Kentucky v. Stone, 88 F. 383; Bear v. Brunswick County, 29 S.E. 719; Stone v. Winn, 176 S.W. 933; State Center Creek Min. Co., 171 S.W. 356; Kansas City Exposition Driving Park v. Kansas City, 74 S.W. 979; Orcutt v. McGilney, 147 N......
-
C. L. Merrick Company v. Minneapolis, St. Paul, & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company
...56 A. 506; Bank of Kentucky v. Stone, 88 F. 383; Bear v. Brunswick County, 122 N.C. 434, 65 Am. St. Rep. 711, 29 S.E. 719; Stone v. Winn, 165 Ky. 9, 176 S.W. 933; State ex rel. Blair v. Center Creek Min. Co. 262 490, 171 S.W. 356; Kansas City Exposition Driving Park v. Kansas City, 174 Mo. ......
-
Howard-Sevier Road Improvement District No. 1 v. Hunt
...... by the judgment of the Federal court. Orcutt v. McGinley, 148 N.W. 586, 96 Neb. 619; Stone . v. Winn, 176 S.W. 933, 165 Ky. 9; Rose v. Port of Portland, 162 P. 498, 82 Ore. 541; Town. of Tallassee v. State, 89 So. 514, 206 Ala. ......
-
An historical analysis of the binding effect of class suits.
...that a final judgment in quo warranto ousting a district's commissioners barred subsequent in quo warranto proceedings); Stone v. Winn, 176 S.W. 933,940 (Ky. 1915) (holding that county taxpayers are bound by res judicata decisions against the county since a municipal corporation stands as a......