National Bank v. County of Yankton

101 U.S. 129, 25 L. Ed. 1046, 1879 U.S. LEXIS 1892
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMay 10, 1880
Docket269
StatusPublished
Cited by135 cases

This text of 101 U.S. 129 (National Bank v. County of Yankton) 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
National Bank v. County of Yankton, 101 U.S. 129, 25 L. Ed. 1046, 1879 U.S. LEXIS 1892 (1880).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

By sect. 4 of the act to provide a temporary government for the Territory of Dakota, no one session of the legislative assembly shall exceed forty days (12 Stat. 239), and in 1869 Congress declared that the sessions of all territorial legislative assemblies should be biennial. 15 id. 300. The members of the legislative assembly of Dakota met on the 5th of December, 1870, and continued in regular session on all days, except Sundays, until Jan. 13, 1871, when they adjourned without day. The day of adjournment was called on the journals the fortieth day of the session, although there bad been but thirty-five days of actual session for the transaction of business. On the 18th of April, 1871, the members of the legislature elected the preceding fall again assembled at the call of the acting governor of the Territory. After organizing themselves as a legislative assembly and proceeding to legislate for the Territory, they passed, among other acts, one entitled “ An Act to enable organized counties and townships to vote aid to any railroad, and to provide for the payment of the same.” Under this act *131 the voters of Yankton County, on the 2d of September, 1871, voted to donate the Dakota Southern Railroad Company $200,000 in the bonds of the county. All the proceedings under which this vote was taken were conducted strictly according to the requirements of the law.

On the twenty-seventh day of May, 1872, the following act of Congress was approved and went into effect. 17 id. 162.

An Act in Relation to the Dakota Southern Railroad Company.

“ Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the act passed by the legislative assembly of the Territory of Dakota, and approved by the governor on the twenty-first day of April, 1871, entitled ‘ An Act to enable organized counties and townships to vote aid to any railroad, and to provide for the payment of the same ’ be, and the same is hereby, disapproved and annulled, except in so far as herein otherwise provided. But the passage of this act shall not invalidate or impair the organization of the company heretofore organized for the construction of the Dakota Southern Railroad leading from Sioux City, Iowa, byway of Yank-ton, the capital of said Territory, to the west line of Bon Homme County, or any vote that has been or may be given by the counties of Union, Clay, Yankton, and Bon Homme, or any township granting aid to said railroad, or any subscription thereto, or any thing authorized by and that may have been done in pursuance of the provisions of the aforesaid act of the legislative assembly of said Territory towards the construction and completion of said railroad, and the said Dakota Southern Railroad Company, as organized under and in conformity to the acts of the legislative assembly of said Territory, is hereby recognized and declared to be a legal and valid corporation; and the provisions of the act of the legislative assembly first aforesaid, so far as the same authorize, and for the purpose of validating any vote of aid and subscriptions to said company for the construction, completion, and equipment of the main stem of said railroad, between the termini aforesaid, are hereby declared to be and remain in full force, but no further, and for no other purpose whatsoever.

“ Sect. 2. That for the purpose of enabling the said Dakota Southern Railroad Company to construct its said road through the public lands between the termini aforesaid, the right of way through said public lands is hereby granted to said company to the extent *132 of one hundred feet in width on each side of said road: Provided, that nothing in this act shall relieve said Dakota Southern Railroad Company from constructing and completing said railroad in accordance with the conditions and stipulations under which the citizens of the counties therein named voted aid to said railroad in accordance with the laws of said Territory, approved April 21, 1871: Provided further, that said Dakota Southern Railroad Company shall issue to the respective counties and townships voting aid to said railroad paid-up certificates of stock in the same in amounts equal to the sums voted by the respective counties and townships.”

After the passage of this act, the bonds voted were delivered by the county commissioners to the railroad company, and stock in the company for an equal amount was issued to the county. The First National Bank of Brunswick, Maine, the Iona fide holder and owner of ten of these bonds, amounting in the aggregate to $10,000, brought this suit, against the county to recover three instalments of interest. The defence was that there was no law authorizing the issue of the bonds, and, as a consequence, that the county was not bound for the payment of either principal or interest. Upon the trial of the cause, the facts were found substantially as already stated, and a judgment was rendered by the District Court of the Territory in .favor of the county. This judgment was afterwards affirmed by the Supreme Court, and thereupon the bank brought the case here by writ of error.

We do not consider it necessary to decide whether the governor of Dakota had authority to call an extra session of the legislative assembly, nor whether a law passed at such a session or after the limited term of forty days had expired would be valid, because, as we think, the act of May 27, 1872, is equivalent to a direct grant of power by Congress -to the county to issue the bonds in dispute. It is certainly now too late to doubt the power of Congress to govern the Territories. There have been some differences of opinion as to the particular clause of the Constitution from which the power is derived, but that it exists has always been conceded; The act to adapt the ordinance to provide for the government of the Territory northwest of the river Ohio to the requirements of the Con *133 stifcution (1 Stat. 50) is chap. 8 of the first session of the first Congress, and the ordinance itself was in force under the confederation when the Constitution went into effect; All territory within the jurisdiction of the United States not included in any State must necessarily be governed by or under the' authority of Congress. The Territories are but political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States. Their relation to the general government is much the same as that which counties bear to the respective States, and Congress may legislate for them as a State does for its municipal organizations. The, organic law of a Territory takes the place of a constitution as the fundamental law of the local government. It is obligatory on and binds the territorial authorities; but Congress is supreme, and for the purposes of this department of its governmental authority has all the powers of the people of the United States, except such as have been expressly or by implication reserved in the prohibitions of the Constitution.

In the organic act of Dakota there was not an express reservation of power in Congress to amend the acts of the territorial legislature, nor was it necessary. Such a power is an incident of sovereignty, and continues until granted away.

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

Related

Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization
606 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 2025)
FOMB v. Pierluisi-Urrutia
First Circuit, 2023
In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R.
318 F. Supp. 3d 537 (U.S. District Court, 2018)
United States v. Lebrón-Caceres
157 F. Supp. 3d 80 (D. Puerto Rico, 2016)
El Pueblo de Puerto Rico v. Sánchez Valle
192 P.R. Dec. 594 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 2015)
Ae Ae v. American Samoa Government
4 Am. Samoa 3d 184 (High Court of American Samoa, 2000)
Ramírez de Ferrer v. Mari Brás
144 P.R. Dec. 141 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1997)
Bienert v. YANKTON SCHOOL DIST., 63-3
507 N.W.2d 88 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1993)
United States v. Rafael Sanchez and Luis Sanchez
992 F.2d 1143 (Eleventh Circuit, 1993)
Ngiraingas v. Sanchez
495 U.S. 182 (Supreme Court, 1990)
Simoa v. American Samoa Government
2 Am. Samoa 2d 9 (High Court of American Samoa, 1984)
American Samoa Government v. Simoa
1 Am. Samoa 2d 91 (High Court of American Samoa, 1983)
People of the Territory of Guam v. Concepcion Okada
694 F.2d 565 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)
United States v. Wheeler
435 U.S. 313 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Otter Tail Power Company v. City of Colman
121 N.W.2d 483 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
101 U.S. 129, 25 L. Ed. 1046, 1879 U.S. LEXIS 1892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-bank-v-county-of-yankton-scotus-1880.