Township of East Oakland v. Skinner

Decision Date01 October 1876
Citation24 L.Ed. 125,94 U.S. 255
PartiesTOWNSHIP OF EAST OAKLAND v. SKINNER
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois.

This was an action of assumpsit on fifty-four coupons cut from certain bonds issued by the township of East Oakland, Ill., in payment of its subscription of $75,000 to the capital stock of the Paris and Decatur Railroad Company.

The election authorizing the subscription was held Feb. 1, 1870, and the subscription made Aug. 15 of that year. The bonds bear date April 20, 1871. The other facts and the provisions of the statute applicable to the case are set forth in the opinion of the court.

The case was tried by the court below without a jury, and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff for $9,207.32 and costs. The township thereupon brought the case here.

Mr. John M. Palmer for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. H. S. Greene, Mr. D. T. Littler, and Mr. James C. Robinson, contra.

MR. JUSTICE HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant in error brought this suit in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois against the township of East Oakland, to recover the amount of certain interest coupons issued with certain bonds by Charles Clement, supervisor, and as the agent of the said town, upon a subscription to the stock of the Paris and Decatur Railroad Company.

The Paris and Decatur Railroad Company is a corporation of the State of Illinois, organized under an act of the general assembly of said State, entitled 'An Act to incorporate the Paris and Decatur Railroad Company,' approved Feb. 18, 1861, with authority to construct, maintain, and operate a railroad from the town of Paris to the town of Decatur, in said State.

By the fifth section of said act it is provided that 'said corporation shall cause books to be opened for subscriptions to the capital stock thereof, to be divided into shares of fifty dollars each, at such times and places as they may choose, and shall give at least thirty days' notice thereof by publication in a newspaper published in the town or city where said books may be opened; and if there be no newspaper published therein, then in the nearest newspaper thereto. It shall be lawful for all persons of lawful age, or for the agent of any corporate body, to subscribe any amount to the capital stock of said company.'

It was by the authority of this section that the subscription we are considering was made, and the bonds and coupons issued in payment therefor. Did this language, 'the agent of any corporate body,' give power to a municipal organization to subscribe and to issue its bonds as was here done?

In the recent case of Campbell v. The Paris & Decatur Railroad Co. (not yet reported), the Supreme Court of Illinois passed upon the effect of this statute. After quoting the section as given above, the court say: 'This is the only provision in the charter in reference to subscriptions by either persons or corporations. It confers no power on municipal corporations to subscribe for such stock. The provision manifestly refers to private corporations when it authorizes agents to subscribe. It does not refer to counties, cities, towns, or townships, and cannot be held to embrace them. No power is conferred to call the election, or for the town officer to make the subscription, or to issue these or any other bonds.' We have not been furnished with a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • State v. Greer
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 9 Octubre 1924
    ... ... In ... Pine Grove Township v. Talcott, 19 Wall. 666, 22 L.Ed ... 227, the action was in assumpsit ... U.S. 487, 1 S.Ct. 442, 27 L.Ed. 238. See Township of East ... Oakland v. Skinner, 94 U.S. 255, 24 L.Ed. 125; Town ... of South ... ...
  • Village of Heyburn v. Security Savings & Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 9 Julio 1935
    ... ... No county, town, township, board of education or school ... district, or other subdivision of the ... quoting with approval from Township of East Oakland v ... Skinner, 94 U.S. 255, 24 L.Ed. 125) ... It is ... ...
  • Board of Com'rs of Wilkes County v. Call
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 9 Noviembre 1898
    ... ... v. Fulton Co., 10 Wall. 676; East Oakland Tp. v ... Skinner, 94 U.S. 255; Buchanan v. Litchfield, ... show the law,--to show that the township had no legal ... authority to make the subscription and to issue the ... ...
  • Union Bank of Richmond v. Commissioners of Town of Oxford
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 17 Noviembre 1896
    ... ... 287; Green ... v. Graves, 1 Doug. 351; People v. Township Board of ... La Grange, 2 Mich. 191; People v. Mahaney, 13 ... Mich. ; Steckert v. City of East Saginaw, 22 ... Mich. 104; Attorney General v. Joy, 55 Mich. 94, 20 ... v ... Graham, 130 U.S. 674, 9 S.Ct. 654; Township of East ... Oakland v. Skinner, 94 U.S. 255; 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. 545 ... The bonds, having ... ...
  • 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