Case ID: us_105/html/0001-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chief Justice. Waite", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wade v. Walnut.
    The court adheres to the-decision of the Supreme Oourt of Illinois declaring.' that the provision in the existing Constitution of that State entitled “Munici-' • pal subscriptions to railroads or private corporations” took effect July 2, 1870.
    . Error to the Circuit Court 'of the United States for. the Northern District'of Illinois.
    This was an action brought by Wade against the town of Walnut, upon, coupons cut from bonds purporting to be issued by the defendant, under the . style of Township of Walnut, in the. County of Bureau and State of Illinois. The declaration avers that each of the bonds contains,; among other recitals, the following: “ This bond is issued under and by virtue of the charter of said Illinois Grand Trunk Railway Company, and amendments thereto,'and other laws of the State of Illinois, and in accordance with the vote of the electors of said township, at the special -election held August ■ 6th, 1870, in accordance with said charter and amendments and laws.” . '
    The defendant demurred to thq declaration, and. judgment was rendered in its favor. It is unnecessary to'1 state the' remaining facts, as the' only question upon which this court passed-was as to whether at the foregoing date there was in force an article of the Constitution of Illinois which is as follows: —
    “No county, city, .town, township, or "Other municipality shall ever become subscriber to the capital stock of any railroad dr pri-’ vate, corporation, or make donation to, or loan its credit in ■ aid of such corporation: Provided, however, that the adoption of this article shall not be construed as affecting the right of any such municipality to make such subscriptions where the same have been .authorized, under existing laws, by a voté of the people of such 'municipalities prior to such adoption.”
    Wade sued out this writ of error.,
    
      Mr. Thomas S. McClelland and Mr. George A. Sanders for the plaintiff in error.
    
      Mr. William O. Goudy and' Mr. Allan C. Story for the defendant in error.
   Mr. Chief Justice. Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

The only question we haves to decide in this case is, whether the Section of the,Illinois Constitution adopted in 1870, relating to “ municipal subscriptions to railroads dr private corporations,” was in force on the 6th of August, 1870. This question came before the Supreme Court of the State at the January Term, 1872, only eighteen months after the Constitution was adopted, in Schall v. Bowman (62 Ill. 321); and it was then decided that this section took effect on-the 2d of July, the day the people voted for its adoption. The opinion in the case was written by -Mr.'Justice Breese, two justices dissenting. At the September Term in the same, year the same questions came again before the court in Richards v. Donagho (66 id. 73), and the opinion was then delivered by Mr. Justice Thornton,in the following words : “ The only question presented by this record was, after mature deliberation, settled by the opinion in Schall v. Bowman. . . . Notwithstanding the able and plausible argument made ini this ease, the majority of. the court adhere to the opinion in the ease referred to above.” Afterwards, at the January Term, 1878, in Wright v. Bishop (88 id. 302), the court said: “Appellants make a very able and interesting argument against' the rulings in those cases; but we are not convinced they should be overruled.”

This court has never until now been called on to decide, the question, but in numerous cases it has assumed that the section took effect on the day fixed by the Supreme Court of the State. Town of Concord v. Portsmouth Savings Bank, 92 U. S. 625; County of Moultrie v. Rockingham Ten-cent Savings Bank, id. 631; County of Randolph v. Post, 93 id. 502; Fairfield v. County of Gallatin, 100 id. 47; Walnut v. Wade, 103 id. 683; Louisville v. Savings Bank, 104 id. 469. Under these circumstances we are not inclined to consider the question- an open one here while the Supreme Court of the State adheres to its ^present rulings. —

Judgment affirmed.