Board of Comm'rs of Knox Cty. v. Aspinwall

62 U.S. 539, 16 L. Ed. 208, 21 How. 539, 1858 U.S. LEXIS 679
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 11, 1859
StatusPublished
Cited by129 cases

This text of 62 U.S. 539 (Board of Comm'rs of Knox Cty. v. Aspinwall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Board of Comm'rs of Knox Cty. v. Aspinwall, 62 U.S. 539, 16 L. Ed. 208, 21 How. 539, 1858 U.S. LEXIS 679 (1859).

Opinions

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 nundred and eighty-four coupons, each for the sum of sixty dollars, the whole amounting to the sum of seventeen [541]*541thousand 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 a3 its clerk, and the sheriff is to attend its meetings and execute its orders. It has a common seal, and-copies of its proceedings, sighed 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.)

[542]*542On the 14th February, 1848, tbe Legislature of Indiana incorporated the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad Company, and by the 12th section of the charter provided ás 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, hoioever, 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 15t.h 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 March then next, to determine whether said county would subscribe for the stock of the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad Company, &c.; and if a majority of the votes shall be given in favor of the subscription, the county board of commissioners shall subscribe to said stock, &c., for the county, to an amount not less than $100,000; Provided, That the county board of any of said counties may, within one week prior to the said election, increase or lessen the amount to be subscribed, of which notice shall be given at the different precincts of said county on the day of the election, &c.

The third section provided that the county subscription shall be payable in county bonds, bearing interest at the rate of six per- cent, per annum, payable annually o.n the first day of March, redeemable at such time and place as the directors «of the company may determine, within thirty years from the date of the subscription. The section then provides for the levying of a tax annually upon the county by the board of commissioners, to meet the accruing interest on the bonds.

[543]*543The plaintiffs gave in evidence, on the trial, that at a meeting of the board of commissioners of the county of Knox, on,the 26th February, 1849, it ordered, under the power given in the second section above referred to, that the county subscribe $200,000 of the capital stock of the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad Company. And, also, that at a meeting on the 25th October, 1850, after reciting that, in accordance with the wishes of the voters of the county, as expressed- at the election held for that purpose in the several townships on the first Monday of March, 1849, it is ordered that the auditor, in the name and for the county of Knox, subscribe'to the capital stock of the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad Company four thousand shares of fifty dollars each, or the sum of $200,000; and that the auditor be authorized to vote at all elections and meetings of stockholders, or to appoint a proxy in his stead. And that, in pursuance of this direction, the auditor subscribed the four thousand shares, and received certificates in the name of the board of commissioners of the county for the same; and also executed and delivered the bonds of the county, as provided for in the third section of the act of 1849, attaching thereto coupons for the interest. The bonds and coupons in question were issued under this authority.

This is the substance of the case, as presented on the record.

The ground upon • which the want of authority to execute the bonds in question is placed, is the alleged omission to comply with the requisition of the statute of 1849, in respect to the notices to be given of the election to be held on the first Monday of March, at which a vote was to be taken for or against a subscription of stock to the railroad company.

It is insisted that an irregularity or oiúission in these notices had the effect to deprive the board of this authority, or rather furnish evidence that the power had never vested in it under the act; and, further, that the plaintiffs are chargeable with a knowledge of all substantial defects or irregularities in these notices of the election, and not therefore entitled to the character of bona fide holders of the securities.

The act in pursiancc of which the bonds were issued is á public statute of a State, and it is undoubtedly true that any [544]*544person dealing in them is chargeable with a knowledge of it; and as this board was acting under delegated authority, he must show that the authority has been properly conferred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Owen v. City of Independence
445 U.S. 622 (Supreme Court, 1980)
Gagliardi v. Flint
564 F.2d 112 (Third Circuit, 1977)
Driscoll v. Burlington-Bristol Bridge Co.
86 A.2d 201 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1952)
Garnett v. State Ex Rel. Bank Commissioner
1932 OK 799 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1932)
Bolton v. Wharton, Mayor
161 S.E. 454 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1931)
Sears v. Greater New York Development Co.
51 F.2d 46 (First Circuit, 1931)
South Sioux City v. Hanchett Bond Co.
19 F.2d 476 (Eighth Circuit, 1927)
Henderson County v. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W.
12 F.2d 883 (Sixth Circuit, 1926)
State Ex Rel. Nuveen v. Greer
102 So. 739 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1924)
C. C. Slaughter Cattle Co. v. Potter County
235 S.W. 295 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1921)
City of Ft. Worth v. Capps Land Co.
205 S.W. 491 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1918)
City of Laredo v. Frishmuth
196 S.W. 190 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1917)
Ekwortzell v. Blue Grass Township
147 N.W. 726 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1914)
State v. School District No. 50
120 N.W. 555 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1909)
Board of County Commr's. of Day County v. State
1907 OK 97 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1907)
Quinlan v. Green County
205 U.S. 410 (Supreme Court, 1907)
Todd v. Crail
77 N.E. 402 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1906)
San Augustine County v. Madden
87 S.W. 1056 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 U.S. 539, 16 L. Ed. 208, 21 How. 539, 1858 U.S. LEXIS 679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-commrs-of-knox-cty-v-aspinwall-scotus-1859.