North Missouri Railroad v. Maguire

87 U.S. 46, 22 L. Ed. 287, 20 Wall. 46, 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1487
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedApril 20, 1874
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 87 U.S. 46 (North Missouri Railroad v. Maguire) 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
North Missouri Railroad v. Maguire, 87 U.S. 46, 22 L. Ed. 287, 20 Wall. 46, 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1487 (1874).

Opinion

*54 Mr. Justice CLIFFORD

delivered the opinion of the court.

Much discussion of the evidence i^u the case will be unnecessary, as the principal facts are embodied in an agreed-statement, which is made a part of the record.

By the agreed statement it appears that the plaintiff company is a corporation established by the laws of the State, and that the other plaintiff claims to be the legal owner of all the property lately owned by ¿he corporation. Said company was. incorporated on the third of March, .1851,'with a capital stock of six millions of dollars divided into shares of one hundred-dollars each.

Pecuniary aid iji large-amounts was furnished to the company by .the State, as' appears from several legislative acts. Such aid was granted by the act of the twentydhird of December, 1851, in terms as follows: that when evidence is produced satisfactory to the governor that the- c’ompany has collected fifty thousand dollars on their capital stock, and that they have expended the same in the survey, location, and construction of the railroad, the governor shall cause to be issued and delivered to the company special bonds of the State to the same amount, as a loan of public credit, bearing interest and payable as therein provided.. Provision is also made in the same section that upon like proof that the company have expended the whole of the sum realized from those bonds, and that they have also expended a further sum Qf the same amount of their own .moneys, that the governor, shall in like manner cause to ’be issued’ and delivered to the company further like bonds for the same amount, and so on in like manner'as often as tbe company shall, from time to. time, furnish like evidence "that they have expended from their-own moneys further sums, of not less than fifty thousand dollars, for the construction of the iailrpad, and that: •they have expended for the purpbse the whole, of the proceeds of the bonds previously issued by the State, the gov-. ernor shall cause to be issued and delivered to 'the company further'like bonds in instalments of the' same amount, not exceeding-in all the sum of two millions of -dollars.

, Bonds of the kind were forbidden to be delivered until *55 the acceptance thereof.should-be signified'to the secretary' of state by the filing in his office of a certificate of such acceptance undfr the corporate seal of the, company with the signature of the president, and the provision was that' the certificate of acceptance so executed and filed should be. recorded in'the office of the secretary of state, and that it" shall become and be, according to all intents and purposes, , a mortgage of said road and every part and section thereof,, and. its appurtenances, to the people of the State,'for secuiv iiig the payment of the principal and interest ..bf the .sums, of' money for which' such bonds shall frpm time -to tinie be - issued and accepted.

Legislative aid was also furnished in like form to' certain! . other railroad companies of thé Sta.te to expedite their con-' struetion and the completion of the same, amounting in the whole to the sum of.nine millions of dollars, including the amount furnished to the plaintiff company,.'all of which was secured as' a first lien on the -respective railroads in like manner.

None of the companies, however, were able to complete-their railroads without further aid from the State, and on the tenth of December, 1855, the legislature, by an apt entitled “An act to secure the completion of certain railroads in the State,” enacted that it shall be the. duty of the governor, upon the application of any of said companies, with the proof of the investment of any sum in the actual com struetion and equipment of the trunk line of the railroad, from sources other than the proceeds of'the bonds of the State, and not secured upon the road by a lieu prior-to that of the State, and verified as therein required, to sign and deliver to s.uch.company an amount-in the bonds of the State equal to twice the-amounCso proven to have been invested in the construction and equipment of the said railroad since the last application and issue, of bonds to such company, and successively from time to time, "uppñ' the application for bonds and proof of such investment, the,governor shall issue and deliver, in like manner, bonds, to. such company-until the aggregate amount to the.plaintiff company shall be *56 two millions of'dollars, 0113 million, of which shall be exclusively applied to.the'construction of a portion of said road therein described.; and it is made the duty of the governor •to expend the other million'of dollars for the purchase of the railroad iron necessary'to lay the track of said road, from one described point to another, and to purchase the rolling stock for the same, and the provision is that the said iron and rolling stock so purchased shall belong to the State' until placed upon the track for use, after which time the State shall have a first.lien on said iron and rolling stock, together with all the road and its equipments, constructed and to be constructed, for the security of the payment of the principal and interest of said bonds, and all bonds issued or that may be issued to said company under this or any former act of the legislature granting the credit of the State to the company.

Power is also reserved to the State to euforce the lieu on the railro'ad for the failure on its part to pay punctually principal and interest on the bonds issued for its benefit, as herein and heretofore provided for in such cases; and the company .shall pay qt the times herein specified, “to the treasurer of the State one apd a quarter per cent., in a.ddition, in each year, on each thirty-year bon'd, and two and a half per cent, .in each year on each twenty-year bond sti sold or hypothecated, to be invested at not less than seven per jeept. interest,-in hucll securities as ar.e provided in the act.”

By the same section it is, also provided, that from the net profits arising from the road after the sainé shall be completed and in operation, a sum equal .to not less than ten per cent.;'per.annum upon the net earnings'of. the railroad shall be .paid by the company to the treasurer'of the-State as.a' sinking, fund, for the purpose of,paying at maturity the. bonds of. the State so issued and. to be issued to the company. ‘

Special -provision is also made that the treasurer of the, company and the treasurer of the State shall be the commissioners of the sinking fund', and that-it shall be the duty of ;th*e cómpány to' pay or remit the. semi-yearly, interest'to the designated place; as . therein provided, and'ip case the *57 company shall fail to pay such interest or to remit the amount to the designated place, it is made the duty- of the treasurer of the State to supply the amount and remit the same; in .which event he is required to refund the amount from the •sinking fund and charge the same to’ the defaulting company. In that event the provision is that the defaulting ompany shall not draw any further State' bonds. Moneys, funds, and 'securities belonging to the sinking fund are declared to be subject to the control, care, a,nd management of the fund commissioners, and the provision is that,from time to time they may invest the same in the"bonds of the State under the conditions therein provided.

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

Related

State Of Washington, V. Starkist Company
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2023
General Motors Corp. v. Wilkins
806 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2004)
Katie Arsberry v. State of Illinois
244 F.3d 558 (Seventh Circuit, 2001)
Stark v. Comptroller of Treasury
554 A.2d 458 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1989)
Northwestern National Life Insurance v. Jordan
447 F. Supp. 856 (D. Nevada, 1978)
Lublin v. Brown
362 A.2d 769 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1975)
Tower Plaza Investments, Limited v. DeWitt
508 P.2d 324 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1973)
Kellems v. Brown
313 A.2d 53 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1972)
Cherokee Brick & Tile Co. v. Redwine
75 S.E.2d 550 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1953)
New York Rapid Transit Corp. v. City of New York
303 U.S. 573 (Supreme Court, 1938)
Barwise v. Sheppard
299 U.S. 33 (Supreme Court, 1936)
Forbes v. Mid-Northern Oil Co.
45 P.2d 673 (Montana Supreme Court, 1935)
Coolidge v. Long
282 U.S. 582 (Supreme Court, 1931)
Virginia & West Virginia Coal Co. v. Charles
251 F. 83 (W.D. Virginia, 1917)
State v. Murphy
98 A. 343 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1916)
Clement National Bank v. Vermont
231 U.S. 120 (Supreme Court, 1913)
State v. Clement National Bank
78 A. 944 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1911)
Grand Lodge v. City of New Orleans
44 La. Ann. 659 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1892)
Anderson v. Brewster
44 Ohio St. (N.S.) 576 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
87 U.S. 46, 22 L. Ed. 287, 20 Wall. 46, 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-missouri-railroad-v-maguire-scotus-1874.