Kenicott v. Supervisors

83 U.S. 452, 21 L. Ed. 319, 16 Wall. 452, 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1175
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 18, 1873
StatusPublished
Cited by46 cases

This text of 83 U.S. 452 (Kenicott v. Supervisors) 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
Kenicott v. Supervisors, 83 U.S. 452, 21 L. Ed. 319, 16 Wall. 452, 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1175 (1873).

Opinion

Mr. Justice HUNT

delivered the opinion of the court. •

The following propositions may be considered as settled in this court.

1. If an election or other fact' is required to authorize the issuerof the bonds of a municipal corporation, and if the result of that election, or the existence of that fact, is by .law to be ascertained and declared by any judge, officer, or tribunal, and that judge, officer, or tribunal, on behalf of the corporation, executes, or issues the bonds, with a recital that the election has been held, or that the fact exists, or has taken place, this will be sufficient evidence of the fact to all bond fide holders of the bonds.

2. If there be lawful authority for the municipality to issue *465 its bonds, the omission of formalities and ceremonies, or'the •existence of fraud on the part of the agents of the municipality issuing the bonds, cannot be urged against a bond fide holder seeking to enforce them. *

3. There must, however, be an original authority; by statute, to the municipality to issue the bonds. Municipal corporations have not the power, except through the special authority of the legislature, to issue corporate bonds which will bind their towns; neither have they the power to sell or mortgage the lands belonging to such towns without special authority.

■ The alleged absence of such authority is the basis of the defence to the mortgage sought to be foreclosed in the present action. Four several and distinct grounds on which such power is based are urged by the plaintiffs. But one of these will be examined. The court is satisfied with the authority to be found in the 10th section of the act to incorporate the Mount Vernon Railroad Company. An examination of the.others is not necessary.

The town of Mount Vernon is situated in Jefferson County, and some 18 miles easterly of the Illinois Central Railroad. This road passes within a short distance of the westerly line of said county, and nearly parallel with it. ."Wayne County is .still east of Jefferson County, the whole of the latter county lying between "Wayne .and the Illinois Central road. In the month of February, 1855, the legislature of Illinois passed an act to incorporate the Mount Vernon Railroad Company, for the purpose of building a railroad from Mount Vernon to the Illinois Central Railroad, or to its Chicago branch. The 7th section of the act provided that the company might borrow money and secure the same by bond or mortgage. By the 8th section it was enacted that' the county of Jefferson might issue its bouds and provide for the payment thereof by the sale or mortgage of its swamp or *466 overflowed lands, or that they might make such other disposition of the lands in aid of the construction and maintenance of the railroad as they deemed best for the public interests of the county.

The 9th-section provided that the question of aiding, the railroad, and of the mode in which such aid should be given, should be submitted to the decision of the .voters of the county.

The 10t.h section was in the following words:

“Any county through which said road may run, and every county through which any other railroad may run, with which this road may be joined, connected, or intersected, may,-and are hereby authorized and empowered to aid in the construction of the same or oí such other road with which it may so connect; and for this purpose the provisions of the seventh, eighth, and ninth sections of this act shall extend, include, and be applicable to every such county and every such railroad.”

. The provisions of the 7th, 8th, and 9th sections of the charter of the Mount Vernon Railroad Company were thus made applicable to any other county than that of Jefferson, through which that road should run, or through which any other railroad should run, which might join, intersect, or connect with the Mount Vernon road. Such other county was expressly authorized to aid in the construction of the Mount Vernon road, or of such other road with which it might so connect.

No reasonable construction of this act will require that the road .to'be aided should be actually built before the county was authorized to give it aid. That theory would no doubt add greatly to the security of the county, and would relieve it from many of the perplexing questions which so commonly arise. If, however, the road were actually built, no aid would be needed in its construction. The aid might, in that event, be useful to its stockholders, or might relieve it from embarrassments, but a road which is built can neither need nor receive aid in its construction. 'That is a fact accomplished. The language of this act ex pressly authorizes the swamp or overflowed lands to be used *467 by the counties in aid of the construction of the road, and it seems to be quite plain that the aid. was intended to be given before the road was built, and that the counties were expected to take the ordinary risk of the success of the undertaking in which they embarked their property.

The county of Wayne held an election in November, 1858, and voted that these lands should be applied in aid of any company that would build a railroad through the county. Soon after this time Van Duser & Smith entered into a contract with Wayne County for building that part of the road of the ’Belleville and Fairfield Company lying between the east line of Wayne County and Mount Vernon, thus running across the entire width of Wayne County. This contract was assigned to the Mount. Vernon Railroad Company, who undertook the construction of this portion of the road.

The county of Jefferson entered into a like contract for the construction of the Mount Vernon road, from Mount Vernon to the Illinois Central.

It was for the purpose of aiding in the construction of the .road thus undertaken to be built by the Mount Vernon Railroad Company from the east line of Wayne County to Mount Vernon, the charter of'that company also requiring its road to be built from Mount Vernon to the Illinois Central, that the bonds in question were issued. They were sold under the authority of the county of Wayne, by its agents, and the proceeds were applied as was intended by the county. The Belleville and Fairfield Railroad Company, afterwards changed to the St. Louis and Louisville Railroad Company, was chartered for the construction of a railroad from St. Louis, on the Mississippi, to Mount Carmel, on the Wabash River. Its proposed line crossed the Illinois Central, and was located directly thi’ough five different counties, among which'was the county of Wayne.

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

Related

Smith v. Town of Cramerton
W.D. North Carolina, 2019
Payne v. Tennessee
501 U.S. 808 (Supreme Court, 1991)
Frazer & Torbett, CPA's v. Kunkel
1965 OK 62 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1965)
Chew v. . Leonard
44 S.E.2d 869 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1947)
Adams v. Mid-West Chevrolet Corp.
1946 OK 331 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1946)
Attorney General v. City of Woburn
58 N.E.2d 746 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1945)
Lakos v. Saliaris
116 F.2d 440 (Fourth Circuit, 1940)
Wright v. Brush
115 F.2d 265 (Tenth Circuit, 1940)
The Leonidas
32 F. Supp. 738 (D. Maryland, 1940)
Van Sicklen v. Commissioner
33 B.T.A. 544 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1935)
Oliver v. State
51 S.W.2d 993 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1932)
Ballard Bros. Fish Co. v. Stephenson
49 F.2d 581 (Fourth Circuit, 1931)
The Jacob Luckenbach
36 F.2d 381 (E.D. Louisiana, 1929)
George A. Fuller Co. v. Brown
15 F.2d 672 (Fourth Circuit, 1926)
Noel v. Parrott
15 F.2d 669 (Fourth Circuit, 1926)
Robertson v. Business Boosters' Country Club
103 So. 576 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)
First Nat. Bank of Columbus v. Obion County
3 F.2d 623 (W.D. Tennessee, 1924)
Steeple v. Max Kuner Co.
208 P. 44 (Washington Supreme Court, 1922)
Payne v. United States ex rel. Mosier
269 F. 871 (D.C. Circuit, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
83 U.S. 452, 21 L. Ed. 319, 16 Wall. 452, 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenicott-v-supervisors-scotus-1873.