Boone County v. Burlington & Missouri River Railroad

139 U.S. 684, 11 S. Ct. 687, 35 L. Ed. 319, 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2423
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedApril 20, 1891
Docket297
StatusPublished
Cited by39 cases

This text of 139 U.S. 684 (Boone County v. Burlington & Missouri River Railroad) 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
Boone County v. Burlington & Missouri River Railroad, 139 U.S. 684, 11 S. Ct. 687, 35 L. Ed. 319, 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2423 (1891).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Blatchford

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a bill- in equity, filed on the 9th of June, 1883, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska, by the county of . Boone, a municipal corporation of the State of Nebraska, against the Burlington and Missouri' River Railroad Company in Nebraska, a Nebraska corporation, and Horatio H. Hunnewell, a citizen of Massachusetts.

The bill avers that during the years from 1873 to 1877, both inclusive, the railroad company, owned certain lands, of which a schedule is annexed to the bill; that for those years taxes were assessed upon those lands, by the proper authorities of Boone County, amounting in all to $68,666, which, with legal interest, costs and penalties, amount now to more than $90,000; that on the 4th of March, 1878, said Hunnewell filed a bill in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska, against the railroad company, and the. board of county commissioners of Boone County, and one P oilman, treasurer of the county, to compel the cancellation of said taxes and procure a decree declaring them to be illegal and void; that on the same day, without the issue of process, the then board of county commissioners of Boone County, by M. H. Sessions, a solicitor of the court, pretended to appear and file a stipulation consenting to the taking of the bill pro oonfesso, and to the entry of a decree in favor of Hunnewell for the relief prayed, granting a perpetual injunction against the collection of any of. the taxes, declaring the same to be illegal and void, and relieving the lands from the lien thereof, which decree was entered on the 8tli of March, 1878. A cojoy of the bill filed bv Hunnewell is annexed. It set forth that the *686 plaintiff and all the stockholders of the company, who numbered over one thousand, were citizens of the United States other than Nebraska, and that the defendants were citizens of Nebraska. Its prayer was for a decree that the taxes were illegal and void, for an injunction restraining the treasurer from enforcing them and from selling any of the land, and restraining the company from paying the taxes, for a decree ordering the treasurer and the board to cancel the taxes and the record thereof on the books of the county, and for general relief. The gravamen of the Hunnewell bill was that the taxes were all of them illegal and void, for reasons set forth in the bill, and that the plaintiff was, and had been for more than four years, the owner and holder of 2316 shares of the stock of the company, and had requested its board of directors to take efficient measures to protect it from said illegal taxes, which request the board of directors refused, and the company was about to pay the taxes.

The decree of March 8, 1878, was as follows: “And now comes as well the said plaintiff, by his attorney, as the said defendants, by their attorneys, and thereupon this action comes on for trial before the court upon the issues joined between the parties; on consideration whereof, the court doth find the issue in favor of the plaintiff, and doth find that the taxes set forth in said petition of plaintiff are void, as in said petition the said plaintiff has alleged. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that an injunction be, and the same is hereby, allowed as prayed for in said petition of plaintiff, and the same is hereby made perpetual; and that the said defendants, the county commissioners and the treasurer of said county, or their successors, are hereby perpetually enjoined from collecting, or in any way attempting to collect, or in any way inter-meddling with, the taxes set forth in said petition, and that the successors in office of the said defendants be, and the same are hereby, perpetually enjoined from collecting or in any way intermeddling with said taxes; and it is further considered that the said-plaintiff recover against the said defendants his costs in and about this suit in this behalf expended, taxed to be — dollars.”

*687 The bill filed June 9, 1883, further sets forth that the taxes were legal and valid, and had not any of them been paid, and were subsisting liens upon the lands. It further avers, that in January, 1878, the then county commissioners of Boone County and the county clerk thereof went from that county to the city of Lincoln, in Lancaster County, Nebraska, at the special instance and request of the railroad company; that at Lincoln, on January 30, 1878, the then county commissioners, pretending to act as the board of commissioners for Boone County, met with certain agents, attorneys and officers of the railroad company and with one Adam Smith, of Chicago, and those parties, confederating for the purpose of defrauding the county, undertook, fraudulently and without any authority of. law, to enter into a stipulation or agreement, which the commissioners signed and delivered to the company. It is dated at Lincoln, January 30, 1878, and is signed by Thomas T. Wilkinson, chairman of the board of commissioners, by the other two commissioners, Edwin Broadbent and T. II. Bowman, and by M. H. Sessions as attorney for Boone County, and reads as follows: Memorandum of an agreement made by and between the Burlington and Missouri River Railroad Company in Nebraska; first party, and the County of Boone, Nebraska, by its commissioners, of the second part, and the Nebraska Land and Live Stock Company, of the third part. Whereas parties of the'first and third parts have this day entered into an agreement and bonds for the performance of certain obligations conditional on the absolute release by the second party of all illegal taxes levied upon the lands of the first and third parties in the county of Boone for the years 1873 and 1877, inclusive: Now, therefore, the party of the second part hereby agrees, by its commissioners and by its authorized attorney, M. II. Sessions, to enter into the necessary stipulation and to have decree of.court entered up in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska, eradicating the whole of the taxes now charged against the lands of the first and third parties for the above years, all of said taxes having been examined and agreed upon as being illegal and void.”

*688 The bill avers that there was no consideration for the agreement ; that- the commissioners acted as individuals and not as a boardj .that their action had no binding or valid effect; and that the pretended consideration for the agreement was the executing at the same time of two documents, for- whose execution there was no warrant in law, and the commissioners had no authority to become parties thereto. One of these documents was dated January 30, 1878, and recited a contract made July 17, 1877, between the county of Boone, through its commissioners, and Adam Smith, wherein Smith agreed to purchase certain lands of the railroad company and pay all legal taxes thereon for the year 1878 and thereafter, and to make certain improvements in the county, in consideration of which the commissioners agreed, at some future day, to take the necessary legal steps for the wiping out of all the illegal taxes claimed to be due upon the lands of the company for the years from 1873 to 1877, both inclusive.

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

Related

Scott v. James
731 A.2d 399 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1999)
State Ex Rel. Schones v. Town of Canute
1993 OK 90 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1993)
State v. Northwest Magnesite Co.
182 P.2d 643 (Washington Supreme Court, 1947)
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.
322 U.S. 238 (Supreme Court, 1944)
City of Boston v. Nielsen
26 N.E.2d 366 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Russell v. Todd
309 U.S. 280 (Supreme Court, 1940)
Cooper v. Ohio Oil Co.
25 F. Supp. 304 (D. Wyoming, 1938)
Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States
304 U.S. 126 (Supreme Court, 1938)
City of Staples v. Minnesota Power & Light Co.
265 N.W. 58 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1936)
Greene County v. Tennessee Eastern Electric Co.
40 F.2d 184 (Sixth Circuit, 1930)
West Virginia Coal Co. v. City of St. Louis
25 S.W.2d 466 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1930)
Sappington v. Board of Com'rs of Jefferson County
1928 OK 655 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)
City of Parkersburg v. Baltimore & O. R.
296 F. 74 (Fourth Circuit, 1923)
Curtis v. Connly
264 F. 650 (First Circuit, 1920)
Mullins v. Kansas City
188 S.W. 193 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1916)
Montgomery County v. City of Montgomery
70 So. 642 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1916)
Mayor of Hagerstown v. Hagerstown Railway Co.
91 A. 170 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1914)
Putnam County v. Smith County
129 Tenn. 394 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
139 U.S. 684, 11 S. Ct. 687, 35 L. Ed. 319, 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boone-county-v-burlington-missouri-river-railroad-scotus-1891.