Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1821-08-21

as the law directs for the extension ofthe |
Streets" s
Subsequently, the following ordinance
was passed and published in the Ed |
wardsville Spectator:
"Whereas the proprietors of the tract
Of land hereinafter described, did petit
ton, that the same being adjoining 10 the
town OF Edwardsville, should be attach
ed TO and made part thereof: and where
as they have furnished plat ofthe same:
therefore, be it ordained by the trustees
of the town of Edwardsyile, that the fol-
lowing tract of land, to wit: Here fol-
low the boundaries be and the same
is hereby made part of and attached to
the said town of Edwardsville, and that
the plat thereof be connected to the plat
of the said town, if any such there be
and the said described land shall and
hereby is declared to be part of the
aforesaid town, entitled TO all the rights,
privileges, and incidents of the corpora
ton OF said town, and subject to the same
rules and regulations in every respect.
The board of trustees elected during
the last year, have passed an ordinance
repeating the one by which the land
named in the preceding ordinance was
annexed. No reason is assigned; but il
is understood, that the ostensible cause
is, that the bond required by the minutes
OF the board was never executed.
| Two questions arise here, first, whe-
| Their the bond was such an one as the
trustees could legally require, and whe-
Their the publication of the ordinance has
not presupposed its execution, or dis
pensed with it. Cd. Whether the board
of trustees could In any case refieai an
ordinance oftheir predecessors, where
DeStsd right is given, or whether it is
competent for them to disfrapchise the
inhabitants of the part annexed, and in
| corporated, who certainly acquired the
right of voting for trustees, and have
actually exercised it, because the bond
may not have been actually signed,
though the parties have been ever ready
SO to do.
have given the subject submitted to
me as much consideration as the short
ness of the time will admit. NY opinion
is, that the 4th section of the act entitled
San act to amend an act authorizing the
appointment of trustees to the Madison
academy and town of Edwardsville,"
empowered the trustees of Edwardsville|
to annex to said town, and make the
same part of it, any land adjoining to
said town, upon the application of the
owner or owners; and that, when the
trustees have acted in conformity with
the power vested in them, by annexing
any tract Of land to the town, they have
no longer any control over the question,
as to the propriety or impropriety Of such
annexation. They have then exercised
all the power vested in them by the legis-
lature; and the proprietors Of the land
annexed, and subsequent purchasers.
have vested right in all the privileges
and franchises conferred by the act of4n-
corporation.
There is no doubt, but the trustees had
a right to require bond of the proprie-
tors, with such a condition as they might
deem requisite. The act, however, does
not make the execution OF bond abso-
iutely necessary to the extension of the
limits of the town. The trustees are at
liberty to require one or not, as to them
may seem meet. 4
! The last ordinance of the trustees, Ell l
ther supposes the execution of bond,
or that they had waivedi it. That they
had a right to waive it seems clear, mas
much as they were not compelled in the |
first instance to require one.
A doctrine that the trustees, under the |
circumstances Of this case, have the right
to reconsider the proceedings of board
OF former trustees, and annul and repeal
them at pleasure, would be productive
of the most oppressive and injurious con-
sequences, not only to the proprietors,
but to subsequent innocent purchasers
They undoubtedly purchased upon the
faith ofthe aforementioned ordinance, and |
had reason to believe, when they saw the
ordinance published, pursuant to the sta
tute, that they would be entitled to all
the rights and privileges Of the corpora
ton and they had further right to sup
pose that the trustees had done their duty
in the premises.
The legislature of this state would not,
according to the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States in the case of
the Dartmouth University, have any right
to take away from the citizens occupying
the land annexed to Edwardsville, the
rights secured to them by said annexation.
That court considered acts Of incorpora-
ton, comforting an interest, or peculiar
privileges, in the nature of contracts,
which are inviolable by the legislature.