Parks v. Iowa Central Railroad
This text of 24 Iowa 188 (Parks v. Iowa Central Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The main point made by appellants, as we understand the brief argument submitted, relates to the sufficiency of the petition to entitle them to the relief claimed.
The objection taken is, that no contract was made, and hence none submitted to the people for their approval or ratification as contemplated by sections 987 and 988 of the ".Revision. In our opinion, this was not necessary. Taking section 986, in connection with the amendment thereof (acts of 1862, ch. 77, p. 78), it was competent to devote' these lands, or their proceeds, to the making of railroads through said county. It is proper to remark, that there is no pretense, that the road was not being built; nor, that the enterprise was not in fact prosecuted as contemplated by the vote. That this is the correct view of the statute, is shown by the case of Barrett v. Brooks (21 Iowa, 144), where the subject is fully discussed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
24 Iowa 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parks-v-iowa-central-railroad-iowa-1868.