The Board of Commissioners of the County of Knox, Plaintiffs In Error v. William Aspinwall, Joseph Alsop, Henry Chauncey, Charles Gould, and Samuel Barlow

Decision Date01 December 1858
Citation62 U.S. 539,16 L.Ed. 208,21 How. 539
PartiesTHE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF KNOX, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. WILLIAM H. ASPINWALL, JOSEPH W. ALSOP, HENRY CHAUNCEY, CHARLES GOULD, AND SAMUEL L. M. BARLOW
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Indiana.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

It was argued by Mr. Reverdy Johnson and Mr. R. W. Thompson for the plaintiffs in error, on which side there was also a brief by Mr. McDonald and Mr. Porter, and for the defendants in error by Mr. Benjamin and Mr. Vinton, on which side there was also a brief by Mr. Judah.

Upon the trial in the court below, the general issue and five special pleas were filed. These pleas alleged the want of a previous legal notice; that there ought to have been a notice of the intention of the board to raise the subscription from $100,000 to $200,000; that there was no record of the judgment of the board; that the bonds were issued all at the same time, and not at the rate of one-fifth per year, as the statute required; and that the contract was in violation of the sixth section of the tenth article of the Constitution of Indiana, which took effect on the 1st of November, 1851.

To these pleas there was a demurrer, which was sustained by the Circuit Court.

The counsel for the plaintiffs in error contended that the demurrer admitted these facts; that the bill of exceptions contained also prayers to the court, which were refused, and instructions given to the jury, upon both points of which there was error; that corporations could not go beyond their powers, and of course the board could only bind itself according to law; that the plaintiffs were bound to inquire into this; that the notice was only published three times in a weekly newspaper; that it was the policy of the board to keep back the notice as long as possible; that the law did not authorize the issue of coupons, because it said that interest should be paid to the holder of the bond.

The counsel for the defendants in error contended that the act must be liberally construed for the objects set forth, as the act itself directed should be done; that bonds were usually issued with coupons, and were authorized by the statutes of Indiana; that the validity of the election might have been tested by any elector interested, (Revised Statutes of 1843, p. 140 to 142;) that no proceeding can now be had to call it in question; that a purchaser had a right to presume that those whom the law intrusted with the duty complied with all the preliminary acts which it enjoined on them, and that it was not necessary to produce the bonds in court.

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Indiana.

The suit was brought in the court below against the board of commissioners of Knox county, to recover the amount due upon two hundred and eighty-four coupons, each for the sum of sixty dollars, the whole amounting to the sum of seventeen thousand and forty dollars. The coupons were payable at the North River Bank, in the city of New York—one hundred and forty-two of them on the 1st of March, 1856, and the remaining number on the 1st of March, 1857. These coupons were originally attached to one hundred and forty-two bonds issued by the defendants, for $1,000 each, the bonds payable at the bank above mentioned, twenty-five years from date, to the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad Company, or bearer, with interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum, payable annually on the 1st of March, at the bank, upon presentation and delivery of the proper coupons hereto attached, by the auditor of said county.

The coupons declared upon and sought to be recovered are those which were attached to these one hundred and forty-two bonds, and represented the interest due thereon on the first of March, 1856 and 1857. The plaintiffs are the holders and owners of these coupons.

The main ground of the defence set up and relied on to defeat the recovery is, that the defendant, the board of commissioners, possessed no authority to execute, or to authorize to be executed, the bonds or coupons in question; and hence, that they are obligations not binding upon the county of Knox, which this board represents. Our chief inquiry, therefore, will be, whether or not these several obligations were executed and put into circulation, as evidences of indebtedness, by competent and legal authority.

The defendant is a body corporate, under the laws of the State of Indiana, by the name of the board of commissioners of the county, and very large powers are conferred upon it in matters relating to the police and fiscal concerns of the county. The auditor of the county is to act as its clerk, and the sheriff is to attend its meetings and execute its orders. It has a common seal, and copies of its proceedings, signed and sealed by the clerk, are evidence in courts of justice. It has power to dispose of the property of the county; to adjust accounts against it; to raise revenue, and examine accounts of disbursing officers; and an appeal lies from its decisions to the Circuit Court. (1 R. S. of Indiana, pp. 180, 187.)

On the 14th February, 1848, the Legislature of Indiana incorporated the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad Company, and by the 12th section of the charter provided as follows:

'It shall be lawful for the county commissioners of any county in the State of Indiana through which said railroad passes, for and in behalf of said county, to authorize, by order on their records, so much of said stock to be taken in said railroad as they may deem proper, at any time within five years after opening the books of subscription to said stock: Provided, however, That it shall be, and is hereby made, the duty of said county commissioners, in any county through which said railroad may pass in the State of Indiana, to subscribe for stock for and on behalf of said county, if a majority of the qualified voters of said county, at any annual election, within five years after said books are opened, shall vote for the same.' (Sess. Laws 1848, page 619.)

This act was amended on the 15th January, 1849; and in the second section it was declared to be the duty of the sheriffs of the counties—and, among others, Knox county, the one in question forthwith to give notice of an election to be held on the first Monday of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
156 cases
  • I IS Ljo State v. County Court Op Wirt County.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 1 April 1893
    ...96 U. S. 205; 110 U. S. 156; 111 U. S. 363; 93 U. S. 502; 105 U. S. 370; 92 U. S. 484; 111 U. S. 1; 1 Wall. 175; 99 U. S. 676; Id., 686; 21 How. 539; Id., 546; 109 U. S. 735; 117 U. S. 336; 16 Wall. 452; 105 U.S. 739; 128 U. S. 102; 16 Wall. 6; 96 U. S. 271; Id., 83; 117 U. S. 74; Id., 680;......
  • United States v. American Bell Tel. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • 26 September 1887
    ...applied the doctrine of estoppel by recitals in such cases to actions on county bonds. Zabriskie v. Railroad, 23 How. 381; Commissioners v. Aspinwall, 21 How. 539; Co. v. Wade, 97 U.S. 13; Lexington v. Butler, 14 Wall. 282; East Lincoln v. Davenport, 94 U.S. 801; Clay Co. v. Savings Soc., 1......
  • Hughes County, S.D., v. Livingston
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 9 October 1900
    ... ... plaintiff in error ... McNeil ... v. Seymour (H. R ... Hughes, by its board of county commissioners, has caused ... this ... 84, 87; ... Commissioners v. Aspinwall, 21 How. 539, 16 L.Ed ... 208; Bissell v ... ...
  • State v. Greer
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 9 October 1924
    ... ... value ( County of Jefferson v. B. C. Lewis & Sons, ... 20 Fla ... In ... County Commissioners of Columbia County v. King, 13 ... Fla. 451, ... clerical error in the date of the bonds named in the act ... statutes ... In ... Board of Commissioners of the County of Knox v ... ...
  • 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