The Kalida venture. [volume] (Kalida, Ohio) 1841-1865, 1853-04-08
parlon ana rIlehigan RalIroad.

application for an Injunction was maze
to the Court by Joseph Gruver, Samuel
Myers, Moses Lee, aud Silas McClish,
VS.. The County Commissioners OF Put
nam County, and the President, Direc-
tors and Company Of the Dayton and
Michigan Railroad. The Bill alleges,
That The Road was moi located al the
times when the notice, vote, subscription
and issue Of the Bonds were made.
! Tha, members Of the Railroad Com
pany used fraudulent representations in
reference 10 the location 10 procure a
vote Of the people for subscription.
That the abstract on file in the Audi
tors office returned by the Clerk of the
Court Of Common Pleas, does not show
that a majority Of the voters voting at
the election voted "For Subscription" to
the Stock Of the Railroad Company.
That all the acts and proceedings
whereby the Bonds Of the County Of
Putnam were issued 10 tie Dayton and
| Michigan Railroad Company, were had
after the Constitution Of 1851 became
in force, and lha, said acts and proceed
ings arc contrary TO the spirit and letter
lis prayer is: That the Commissioners
Of Putnam County be restrained from
} levying any Tax 10 pay the interest OF
principal Of the Bonds issued to said
Company, and for perpetual Injunction
TO that effect And
! Thai the Dayton and Michigan Rail
road Company be also restrained fiom
the sale, transfer, OF use Of said Bonds
and that on the fnal hearing Of the case
The Injunction be made perpetual and
that the Company be decreed 10 deliver
up the Bonds for cancellation.
Affidavit was made by M. Lee, fol
: Complainants, to dispense with service
at this time by affidavit,) ,ba, service o
nolice ON the adverse parties, of this
application would prejudice the interests
Of rslators. as the officers Of the D. & M
Railroad would negotiate the Bonds, and
defeat one principal objec. of the lnjunc-
ton prayed for.
Mr.. Leland, on behalf Of the citizens
interested in tue Railroad, for respond
enis, objected that the issuing of lnjunc-
tions without notice was power, vested
BY law in tho Court, such as should only
be exercised on occasions whore certain
and immediate injury would inevitably
easue il such injunction were not granted
without delay, aud that this application
exhibited no such slate Of facts as the
Ian contemplated for the exercise oi
such summary jurisdiction.
The Court sustained The objection
and observed that no reason existed, or
was alleged, why the Commissioners Of
lhs County should not be notified of the
pcndsncy Of the application. WhereuPon
the case was adjourned over until next
day at one O'Clock, p M, TO give time
for seryice on the Commissioners.
| On the 25th uIt. the application was
heard, the Commissioners Of the County,
having been notified, having met, and
declined 10 employ counsel TO defend in
the matter.
AT the hearing,
Mr.. A. MONROE, Of counsel for Com.
plainants held, that the Road ought 10
have been located before the vote was
had. lst. Because without that the peo-
ple could not vote understandingly.-
I'd. Tha, improper influences might he
exened by those supposed TO know best
where the road would be located. Sd.
Tint if the road is not located before the
subscription made and bonds issued there
is no limit as 10 the time Of location, and
The county might be compelled to pay
the full amount Of the bonds before the
cation Of the road; and indeed the road
might never be located, which was evi-
dsntly uotfhg intention Of the legislature.
4 That the lawis unconstitutional: lsL
The law was not in force so far as Pu:-
nam county was concerned until the vote
was had, and no vote was taken until
after the Constitution Of 1851 was in
force, but the vote was taken afterwards
contrary TO sec. 26 Of arl. 2, which pro-
vides that no law shall be passed excepI
such as relate to schools, &C., 10 lake
effect upon tho approval of any Other