Sheboygan Co. v. Parker

Supreme Court

Sheboygan Co. v. Parker

70 U.S. 93, 18 L. Ed. 33, 3 Wall. 93, 1865 U.S. LEXIS 689

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 18, 1866

StatusPublished

Cited by47 cases

This text of 70 U.S. 93 (Sheboygan Co. v. Parker) 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

Sheboygan Co. v. Parker, 70 U.S. 93, 18 L. Ed. 33, 3 Wall. 93, 1865 U.S. LEXIS 689 (1866).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice GRIER

delivered the opinion of the court.

*96 It is admitted that the bonds in question were issued in conformity with the statute of the Wisconsin legislature. By this statute, the bonds issued in pursuance of it are made “ full and complete evidence, both in law and equity, to establish the indebtedness of the county according to their tenor and effect.”

The objection is, that the act is unconstitutional and void. Is the objection well founded?

The commissioners or board of supervisors of a county, in the exercise of their general powers as such, have no authority to subscribe stock to railroads, and bind the people of the county to pay bonds issued for that purpose without special authority conferred upon them by the legislature. But when special authority is given to the people of a county to do these acts, and bind themselves by the issue of such bonds, the legislature may properly direct the mode in which it shall be effected. The persons specially appointed to act as agents for the people have a ministerial duty to perform in issuing the bonds, after the people, at an election held for the purpose, have assented that they shall be bound.

Such persons, in performance of their special duty, are in no proper sense, “ county officers.” They do not exercise any of the political functions of county officers, such as levying taxes, &c. They do not exercise “ continuously, and as a part of the regular and permanent administration of the government, any important public powers, trusts, or duties.” *

An officer of the county is one by whom the county performs its usual political functions; its functions of government. Any other persons appointed by the legislature and the people of the county, would be as competent to execute the bonds of the corporation as the supervisors. They are the lawful agents of the people for this special purpose, and though nominated by.the legislature, they cannot act without the assent of the citizens of the county, ascertained in the manner directed by law; and, having so acted, the county cannot now repudiate their acts. '

Judgment aeeirmed, with costs.

*

State v. Kennon, 7 Ohio, 562.

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

Mr. Justice GRIER

delivered the opinion of the court.

*96 It is admitted that the bonds in question were issued in conformity with the statute of the Wisconsin legislature. By this statute, the bonds issued in pursuance of it are made “ full and complete evidence, both in law and equity, to establish the indebtedness of the county according to their tenor and effect.”

The objection is, that the act is unconstitutional and void. Is the objection well founded?

The commissioners or board of supervisors of a county, in the exercise of their general powers as such, have no authority to subscribe stock to railroads, and bind the people of the county to pay bonds issued for that purpose without special authority conferred upon them by the legislature. But when special authority is given to the people of a county to do these acts, and bind themselves by the issue of such bonds, the legislature may properly direct the mode in which it shall be effected. The persons specially appointed to act as agents for the people have a ministerial duty to perform in issuing the bonds, after the people, at an election held for the purpose, have assented that they shall be bound.

Such persons, in performance of their special duty, are in no proper sense, “ county officers.” They do not exercise any of the political functions of county officers, such as levying taxes, &c. They do not exercise “ continuously, and as a part of the regular and permanent administration of the government, any important public powers, trusts, or duties.” *

An officer of the county is one by whom the county performs its usual political functions; its functions of government. Any other persons appointed by the legislature and the people of the county, would be as competent to execute the bonds of the corporation as the supervisors. They are the lawful agents of the people for this special purpose, and though nominated by.the legislature, they cannot act without the assent of the citizens of the county, ascertained in the manner directed by law; and, having so acted, the county cannot now repudiate their acts. '

Judgment aeeirmed, with costs.

*

State v. Kennon, 7 Ohio, 562.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 U.S. 93, 18 L. Ed. 33, 3 Wall. 93, 1865 U.S. LEXIS 689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheboygan-co-v-parker-scotus-1866.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack