Board of Supervisors of Jackson County v. Brush

77 Ill. 59
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1875
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 77 Ill. 59 (Board of Supervisors of Jackson County v. Brush) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Board of Supervisors of Jackson County v. Brush, 77 Ill. 59 (Ill. 1875).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Scott

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This bill was for an injunction and decree that two hundred undated bonds, each for the sum of §1000, prepared under an order of the county court of Jackson county, and delivered to John M. Hanson, Hugh Crawford and John Ford, in trust for the Cairo and St. Louis Railroad Company, be surrendered up to the corporate authorities of the county, and that the orders of the county court of that county made on the 10th day of August, 1871, authorizing and directing that two subscriptions, each for the sum of §100,000, be made to the capital stock of the Cairo and St. Louis Railroad Company, be declared null and void, as having been made without authority of law. One hundred of these bonds, it is claimed, were issued under a subscription voted at an election held on the 9th day of June, 1868, and the other one hundred under a subscription voted on the 24th day of July. 1869. The court, on the final hearing, dissolved the temporary injunction, and dismissed the bill as to the first series of bonds, but made the injunction perpetual and decreed relief as to the second series. Both parties appealed to this court, and assign errors.

On the 10th day of August, 1871, two orders were entered of record in the county court of Jackson county, in the first of which it is recited, in substance, that on the 9th day of June, 1868, an election was held in the several precincts of the county of Jackson, at the usual places of holding elections, on a proposition, submitted to the voters of the county, for or against a subscription of §100,000 to the capital stock of the Cairo and St. Louis Railroad Company, and that at such election a majority of the votes cast was in favor of the sub- . scription, upon the conditions named in the proposition submitted, viz: the bonds to be issued in payment of the stock; to run twenty years, at the option of the county; to bear interest, at the rate of eight per cent per annum, and no part of them to be delivered to the railroad company until the railroad should be completed to Murphysboro: then, bonds equal to one-half of the subscription to be executed and delivered to the company, and the other half of the bonds to l e issued when the railroad should be completed from Cairo to St. Louis, and the cars running thereon. The bonds were to bear no interest until delivered. Thereupon the court ordered that a subscription of $100,000 to the capital stock of the Cairo and St. Louis Railroad Company be, and the same was, by that order, made, upon the conditions specified in the proposition voted upon ; and it was further ordered, for the purpose of paying such subscription, there shall be issued bonds, in the sum of $1000 each, to the aggregate amount of $100,000, payable in twenty years, at the option of the county, with interest at eight per cent per annum, to bear date on the day of the delivery to the company, but no interest to commence to run until the date of delivery. The clerk of the county court was required to have the bonds prepared, omitting the date, and when so prepared, he was directed to deliver them to John M. Hanson, Hugh Crawford, and John Ford, who were, by the court, appointed trustees on behalf of the county, to receive them. Authority was given to the trustees, by the order of the county court, to date and deliver the bonds to the railroad company after the same had been signed by the members of the court, upon compliance with the conditions contained in the proposition voted upon: that is to say, the trustees were directed to deliver bonds to the amount of $50,000 to the company when the railroad should be completed to Murphysboro, and bonds for the remaining $50,000 when the railroad should be completed from Cairo to St. Louis, and the ears running thereon, but not otherwise; and, simultaneously therewith, to receive'from the railroad company its certificate or certificates of paid up stock to an amount equal to the sum of the bonds so delivered.

The second order recited that an additional subscription of $100,000 to the capital stock of the Cairo and St. Louis Railroad Company was voted at an election held in the several precincts of the county, on the 24th day of July, 1869, upon precisely the same conditions as stated in the first proposition submitted. A like order was made that the clerk of the county court cause the bonds to be prepared, and, when signed in blank, to be delivered to the trustees named in the previous order, to be by them received, and to be delivered to the railroad company upon compliance with the conditions expressed in the order.

Accordingly, two series of bonds, with coupons attached, of the denomination of $1000 each, numbered from one to one hundred, inclusive, were prepared, but without date, and after the same had been signed by the members of the county court, they Were delivered to the trustees named, who were authorized, by the order of the county court, to date and deliver them when it should appear the railroad company had complied with all the conditions upon which the subscriptions had been voted.

At the November election, 1871, the question having been submitted, it was voted to adopt township organization in Jackson county, and the board of supervisors since elected have succeeded the old county court in the management of the affairs of the county. Hence, the board of supervisors appear as complainant in this cause.

Without reference to the merits of this controversy, it is quite clear the undated bonds in the hands of the parties named as trustees should be surrendered to the corporate authorities of the county, and to that extent the relief asked as to both series of bonds should have been granted. No authority can be found for placing them in the hands of trustees with directions, when they should deem the conditions on which the subscriptions had been voted complied with, to deliver them to the railroad company, in payment of stock to be issued to the county. Conceding the subscriptions had been authorized by a vote of the people of the county, nevertheless it was upon express conditions annexed, and no liability rested upon the county to issue bonds until those conditions had been fully performed. Who is to determine when these bonds shall be issued and delivered to the railroad company, if at all ? Clearly, it must be the regularly constituted officers of the county, elected by the people, and intrusted with the management of all financial matters of the county and all municipal affairs. This is an official trust, which neither the county court nor its successor, the board of supervisors, could delegate to strangers owing no obligation or allegiance to the county. The reasons for this proposition are obvious. In the first place, the people had never consented that any one, other than the proper officers of the county, should judge of the performance of the conditions precedent on which the subscriptions had been voted; and, in the second place, should a controversy arise, it is all important the bonds should be in the hands of these officers until the matter could be judicially determined.

There are grave reasons to be found in the facts of this case why this should be so. Notwithstanding the elections may have been regularly conducted under enabling laws, it may still be true, as charged in the bill, the subscriptions were voted on the implied understanding the railroad to be constructed should be of the usual and customary gauge of other roads. The proposition submitted was silent on this subject.

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

Related

West Virginia & P. R. v. Harrison County Court
34 S.E. 786 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1899)
City of Chicago v. Stratton
58 Ill. App. 539 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1895)
Sampson v. People ex rel. Rich
141 Ill. 17 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1892)
Williams v. People ex rel. Wilson
132 Ill. 574 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1890)
Lufkin v. City of Galveston
56 Tex. 522 (Texas Supreme Court, 1882)
Town of Prairie v. Lloyd
97 Ill. 179 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1880)
Maxwell v. Bay City Bridge Co.
2 N.W. 639 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1879)
Lippincott v. Town of Pana
92 Ill. 24 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1879)
County of Richland v. People
3 Ill. App. 210 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1878)
Wright v. Bishop
88 Ill. 302 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1878)
Town of Middleport v. Ætna Life Insurance
82 Ill. 562 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 Ill. 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-supervisors-of-jackson-county-v-brush-ill-1875.