The Kalida venture. [volume] (Kalida, Ohio) 1841-1865, 1853-04-08
>S>A,1NN0 \

The manner OF voting, &c, provided that
all bonds, &c, issued by such Commits
sioners, regular on the face thereof,
in the Lands Of the Railroad Company,
or any bona fde holder thereof, should
be deemed and taken in all Courts as
conclusive Of the regularity Of every
thing required 10 the issuing of such
obligations; held that this provision Of the
law disposed Of this question Of irregul
arily. The Commissioners Of the Coun.
lty were made the judicial tribunal 10
decide this question OF regularity; they
had decided, and this was not the form
OF proceeding in which their decision
could be legally reviewed. These
Bonds were memhaniable. and were
probably then in New York or Europe
and il was proper that there should be
provision estoPping controversy about
the acts preliminary 10 their issue for the
protection Of third parties.
! The Bill was insuficienh az il
required that the Court take judicial
notice OF matters necessary, he claimed,
to be set out in the Bill, and established
by proof. r
Sec. 9Th, Of art. sIh, of the ConSlitu,
tion of 1851, which denies 10 The Gen.
eral Assembly the power TO authorize
any county by vote Of its citizens TO be-
come stockholders in corporation had
no effect on The laws chartering the
Dayton and Michigan Railroad, which
had theii enactment before its adoption.
lis limitations apply only TO subsequent
aud future Legislatures, and the same
principle governed the construction OF
other provisions cited in the new Consti.
luton. 1t, therefore, did not repeal the
charter Of this Company, nor had their
charter been repealed by law of the
General Assembly, and il was now Of full
force. The alleged inequality or injus-
tice of the law did moi affect the question.
Courts were bound 10 administer laws
however abhoneni to propnsiy. .
He held that il was not in the Cons.i-
tulioa, a,nori in the Legislature 10 determine
of the constilulional:ty oflegslalive acts,
The power was vested only in the Courts.
4 He did not, however, propose at this
stage Of the case TO enter upon the Con-
stilut;ona! argument without some Care
full examination, and facilities TO search
out authorities having analogy 10 the
questions raised Jy this application for
Injunction.
Mr.. A. Cofiuberry. replied at length
arguing with some fullness the points
previously raised. We have only room
for one Of the points made by MIN. He
r held that so far as regarded this charter
of the Dayton and Michigan Railroad
Company, that no right had vested under
il, previous to the adoption Of the Consti.
tuition Of 1851, which provided that acis
inconsistent with its provisions should be
by its adoption repealed. The Legis!a.
,ure granted charter and it was not
accepted before the grant was withdrawn
and the privilege denied. The charter
was repealed before this vote was taken,
before any road was laid out, or before
any money was expended, and repealed
before any action had been taken under
the law by the Company, and all that
had since been done was entirely and
perfectly void. He remarked that the
argument offered OF the negoliability of
these Bonds affecting third parties in
New York or Europe was reason for this
proceeding 10 determine as soon as 7ossi-
: BILE and directly the validity Of these
Bonds. He claimed that no similar state
of facts as here SGT forth had previously
occurred on which decisions could be
based. a14 .sa
Judge Palmer after some remarks said
, iha, he would reserve the case for three
or four days for careful consideration, oh
account Of The magnitude Of some ofihe
questions involved, and should forward
his decision. The Court was then ad-
journed. z..s1as
The bill was received yesterday even.
ing, by mai, from Judge Palmer, endorsed,
81 do allow writ Of Injunction as prayed
for in this bill, and before such writ shall
issue, do require Of the complainanis,
} bond in the sum Of $4,000. March
| 81, 1853"
For Complainsnts--A, Monroe, J. A.
Coffinberry, A. Cofinberry.
For Respondents-E. II. Leland.