Union Pacific Railroad v. Commissioners of Colfax County

4 Neb. 450
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 4 Neb. 450 (Union Pacific Railroad v. Commissioners of Colfax County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Union Pacific Railroad v. Commissioners of Colfax County, 4 Neb. 450 (Neb. 1876).

Opinion

Maxwell, J.

This is an application for a temporary order of injunction to restrain the collection of certain taxes in Colfax county, levied for the payment -of the interest due on certain bridge bonds which it is claimed are illegal and void.

The petition states: “That for the purpose of borrowing money thereon for the purpose of building bridges in said county and over divers streams situated therein, said county did, on the 14th day of May, 1870, issue and sell its coupon bonds for the sum of eleven thousand dollars divided into sums of one thousand dollars each, running for the term of fifteen years with interest thereon at the rate of 10 per cent, per annum, payable semiannually on the 5th day of July and January of each year.

That on or about the 1st day of August, 1871, for the purpose of borrowing money thereon to build and erect a wagon bridge over the Platte river at or near the town of Schuyler in said county, the said county issued and sold its coupon bonds to the. amount of $60,000; and that on the 1st day of July, 1874, the precinct of Schuyler, for the purpose of repairing said Platte river wagon bridge, issued and sold through its county commissioners its coupon bonds to the amount of $5,000, with interest at 10 per cent, payable semi-annually, and principal payable [454]*454fifteen years from date; that the plaintiff is unable to state further in detail the provisions and conditions of said bonds: that they have applied to the county authorities of said county for a copy thereof, but have been unable to obtain the same for the reason, as stated, that no record has been kept by said county. * That all of said bonds are now outstanding; and the complainant alleges that of the taxes levied as aforesaid by said county the tax designated “bridge bonds, 6 mills,” producing a tax against the plaintiff upon its railroad and appurtenances of the amount of one thousand three hundred and twenty dollars and thirty cents, and the tax designated Schuyler precinct bonds amounting to one hundred and forty-six dollars and seventy cents, were levied to raise money to pay interest on the said bridge bonds so called, hereinbefore mentioned. That said bonds so issued, as aforesaid, were not issued in aid of any private person or corporation undertaking the construction of said bridge, but that the same was built by said county, and the said bonds were issued, and the proceeds thereof applied to the erection of said bridge; that the same is not a railroad bridge, or a work of internal improvement, but a mere extension of the public highway across said Platte river, near said Schuyler.

And said plaintiff alleges and charges that said “bridge bond tax,” and “Schuyler precinct bond tax,” so levied and assessed as aforesaid, were levied without any authority of law whatever, and that they have been assessed and levied without any statute of this state or law of Congress authorizing the same, but such levy and assessment are illegal and void, and ought not to be enforced against this plaintiff.”

But two questions are presented by the petition.

First. What is the proper construction of the word aid as it occurs in section 19, chap. 9 of the Rev. Statutes of 18C6; and in section 1 of an act “To enable counties, [455]*455cities and precincts to borrow money on their bonds or to issue bonds to aid in the construction or completion of works of internal improvement in this State, and to legalize bonds already issued for that purpose,” approved Eeb. 15,1869 (Laws, 1869, page 92)?

Second. Is a bridge of this kind a work of internal improvement?

Sec. 19, chap. 9 of the Revised Statutes of 1866 provides that the county commissioners shall have power to submit to the people at any regular or special election the question whether the county will borrow money to aid in the construction of pirblic buildings; the question whether the county will aid or construct any road or bridge.

Sec. 23 provides that “'where the object is to construct or aid in constructing, any road or bridge, the annual rate shall not exceed one mill on the dollar valuation.”

Chap. 12 of the Rev. Statutes, repealed in 1873, provided in substance that where a county seat was located on the public lands “the tribunal transacting county business shall enter or purchase one quarter section of land for the use of the county, which shall be surveyed into town lots, squares, streets and alleys, and platted and recorded in pursuance of law, and shall select the place for the county buildings thereon, reserving for that purpose so. many of said lots as may be deemed necessary, the remainder to be sold at public sale to the highest bidder, and the proceeds of the sale to constitute- a fund for the erection of public buildings.” It is apparent that the public buildings thus erected were to be owned by the county and that the aid to be given by the county in their construction, by borrowing money, was to be for such sum as might be thought necessary to secure their completion, and we think it is quite clear that no narrower construction should be given to the language employed in the same connection in respect to “aid” authorized to [456]*456be given in the construction of any road or bridge by a vote of the people of the county.

Section 1, of an act to enable counties, cities and precincts to borrow money on their bonds, or to issue bonds to aid in the construction or completion of works of internal improvement in this state, and to legalize bonds already issued for that purpose, approved February 15th, 1869, provides: “That any county or city in the state of' Nebraska is hereby authorized to issue bonds to aid in the construction of any railroad or other work of internal improvement, to an amount to be determined by the county commissioners of such county, or the city council of such city, not exceeding ten per cent, of the assessed valuation of all taxable property in said county or city; provided, the county commissioners or city council shall first submit the question of issuing bonds to a vote of the legal voters of said county or city, in the manner provided by chapter nine of the Revised Statutes of the state of Nebraska, for submitting to the people of a county the question of borrowing money.” Laws 1869, 92.

The legislature on the same day on which the above act was passed, also passed an act entitled, “An act to aid in the construction of a bridge across Blue river.”

“Section 1. That one thousand acres of land in Saline county, donated to said state by the United States, for the purpose of internal improvement, be and are hereby appropriated and set apart to said Saline county, for the exclusive purpose of aiding said county in constructing a bridge across Blue river,” etc. Laws 1869, 278.

On the same day a bill was passed .appropriating one thousand acres of land, granted to the state for internal improvement, for the purpose of building a bridge across the Blue river, in the town of Beatrice. Laws 1869, 276.

In 1871, the legislature passed an act entitled “An act to provide aid to counties for constructing highway bridges across the Platte river,” approved, March 1, [457]*4571871.

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

Related

Webber v. City of Scottsbluff
293 N.W. 276 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1940)
Brazos River Conservation & Reclamation District v. McCraw
91 S.W.2d 665 (Texas Supreme Court, 1936)
City of Long Beach v. Payne
44 P.2d 305 (California Supreme Court, 1935)
Shannon v. Martin
139 S.E. 671 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1927)
State v. Bone Creek Township
190 N.W. 586 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1922)
Pappenburg v. State
65 So. 418 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1914)
Strange v. Board of Commissioners
91 N.E. 242 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1910)
Sears v. Steel
107 P. 3 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1910)
Hopkins v. Railroad
32 L.R.A. 354 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1896)
In re Internal Improvements
18 Colo. 317 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1893)
Yesler v. City of Seattle
25 P. 1014 (Washington Supreme Court, 1890)
State ex rel. City of Columbus v. Babcock
23 Neb. 179 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1888)
State ex rel. City of Lincoln v. Babcock
19 Neb. 223 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1886)
State ex rel. Peterson v. Keith County
16 Neb. 508 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1884)
Blair v. Cuming County
111 U.S. 363 (Supreme Court, 1884)
Traver v. Board of County Commissioners
14 Neb. 327 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1883)
Board of County Commissioners v. McNamar
10 Neb. 276 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1880)
South Platte Land Co. v. Board of County Commissioners
7 Neb. 253 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Neb. 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-pacific-railroad-v-commissioners-of-colfax-county-neb-1876.