Town of Middleport v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1876 |
| Citation | 1876 WL 10257,82 Ill. 562 |
| Parties | TOWN OF MIDDLEPORTv.AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Iroquois county; the Hon. NATHANIEL J. PILLSBURY, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. DOYLE & KING, for the appellant.
Messrs. WILSON & PERRY, for the appellees.
The act of March 7, 1867, authorized all incorporated towns and cities, and towns acting under township organization, within limited boundaries, to appropriate such sums of money as they might deem proper to the Chicago, Danville and Vincennes Railroad Company, to aid in the construction of its road, to be paid as soon as the track should be located and constructed through such city, town or township, subject, however, to the condition that the proposition to make such appropriation should first be submitted to a vote of the legal voters of such municipality, at a regular or special election, upon notice being given; and if the majority of the votes cast should be in favor of the appropriation, then it should be made, otherwise not. Provision was made that the authorities of such corporations might levy and collect a tax, as might be necessary and proper for the prompt payment of such appropriations. No authority was given by that act to issue bonds or borrow money with which to pay such donations.
An election was held on the 8th day of June, 1867, in the town of Middleport, under the provisions of that act, at which a majority of the votes cast were in favor of the proposition submitted, that the town would appropriate, as a donation to the Chicago, Danville and Vincennes Railroad Company, the sum of $15,000. No work was done by the railroad company towards constructing its road until the spring of 1871. It was then prosecuted with such dispatch, the road was completed through the town of Middleport by about the middle of July, next thereafter.
On the 10th of February, 1871, at a meeting of a portion of the officers of the town, at which were present the supervisor, the clerk and one justice of the peace, a preamble and resolution were adopted, to the effect that as it appeared the township was unable to pay the amount voted as a donation to the railroad company, it was resolved to issue bonds in the sum of $15,000, together with a sufficient amount to cover the discount necessary to enable them to negotiate the bonds, that is to say $1500, in addition to the principal sum donated. Bonds were accordingly prepared for the sums indicated, bearing date the 13th day of February, 1871, signed by the supervisor and town clerk, and delivered to a trustee resident in New York, in escrow, to be delivered to the railroad company when certain conditions should be performed, to prevent, as is alleged, the enjoining the issuing of such bonds.
These bonds were afterwards, at the request of the company, surrendered up and destroyed, and other bonds issued in lieu thereof, bearing date March 24, 1871, each for the sum of $1000, numbered from one to fifteen, both numbers inclusive, signed by the supervisor and town clerk, payable at different periods, with interest at ten per cent per annum, payable semiannually, as shown by coupons attached. At the same time the supervisor paid the agent of the company $1500 in money, instead of issuing an extra bond, as was proposed by what purports to have been an order of the board of auditors of the town.
All these bonds recite upon their face the several acts of the legislature under which they were issued, and that they were issued in accordance with a vote of the electors of the township, at an election on the 8th day of June, 1867. The present holders of the bonds are chargeable, therefore, with notice of the fact whether there was any authority of law for issuing such bonds. Under the decisions of this court, if there was a total want of authority in the municipal officers to issue such bonds, they are void, no matter if they have come to the hands of the present holders for full value paid. Whoever deals in municipal bonds must be presumed to know what powers such corporations have, under the enabling laws of the State, to issue the securities in which they are making investments. Such authority, where any exists, is to be found in public laws, and is equally accessible to all.
This brings us to the important inquiry, what authority had the officers assuming to act on behalf of the town of Middleport, to issue the bonds which are the subject of this litigation? Clearly they derived no authority whatever from the act of March, 1867, under which the election as to the propriety of making the appropriation to the railroad company was held. That act did not purport to give either the township or its officers power to borrow money or to issue bonds in payment of any appropriations that might be voted by the legal voters of the town to the railroad company. Such appropriations or donations were to be paid by a tax, which it was made the duty of the corporate authorities to levy and collect. Where one mode of payment of municipal indebtedness is fixed by statute, by implication it excludes all others. The electors gave their consent to the statutory mode of paying the appropriation voted, viz: by taxation, and none other, and the corporate authorities of the town were not at liberty to adopt any other mode.
The act of February 26, 1869, to which reference is made as conferring power upon the officers of the town to issue bonds in payment of the appropriation or donation voted under the act of March, 1867, is “An act to legalize certain aids heretofore voted and granted to aid in the construction” of the proposed railroad. That is all it purports to be by its title. The constitution of 1848, under which these acts were passed, contained a restriction that “no private or local law which may be passed by the General Assembly shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.” This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Katz v. Herrick
... ... promissory note in payment of a premium on a policy of life ... insurance, and thereafter assigned such note to K., on ... said laws. ( American Ins. Co. v. Wellman, 69 Ind ... 413.) This is construing a ... 538, 24 L. R. A. 311; La France Fire Eng. Co. v. Town of ... Mt. Vernon, 9 Wash. 142, 43 Am. St. Rep. 827, 37 ... directly in Illinois courts. ( Middleport v. Ins ... Co., 82 Ill. 562; People v. Brislin, 80 ... ...
-
Hutchinson v. Self
...rests on him who affirms their validity. See Wright v. Bishop, 88 Ill. 302;Jackson Co. v. Brush, 77 Ill. 59;Town of Middleport v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 82 Ill. 562;People v. Jackson Co., 92 Ill. 441;Town of Prairie v. Lloyd, 97 Ill. 179;People v. Town of Bishop, 111 Ill. 124;Williams v. Peop......
-
Parker v. Smith
...§ 7. The supervisor and town clerk are not the authorities to determine when conditions precedent have been performed: Middleport v. Ætna Life Ins. Co. 82 Ill. 562; Rev. Stat. 1877, Chap. 139, § 118. They could not subscribe the stock and issue bonds except at a regular town meeting or by o......
-
Donnersberger v. Prendergast
...Lim. 177, 178, and notes. See, also, Knox Co. v. Davis, 63 Ill. 405;Myers v. People, 67 Ill. 503;Binz v. Weber, 81 Ill. 288;Middleport v. Insurance Co., 82 Ill. 562;Hinze v. People, 92 Ill. 406;Cornell v. People, 107 Ill. 372; People v. Hazelwood, supra. The provision for changing the bound......