The Nevada journal., 1856-01-11
Important Decisions

Important Decisions.
We publish entire the following de-
cisions of Judge Searles, as they are of
peculiar intsraSt>to the inhabitants o
The PeoPls Ef:Rel j. R. Mcconnell, Att',
6 Bee" as's4 sal lflalp5ss salpssss ,'
The 9dthority of State legislature to ere
ate corporations with powers not repugnant te
the Constitution of the United States and the
acts of Congress, and which do not conflict
with the powers of the general government OF
the Constitution of the State, is. (say the law
writsrs) so clear and has ,.beetf sdiong and SO
often claimed and.exercisedk that it is unneces.
sary to offer any comment or authorities upon
the point.
But if it were in any way doubtful, it is ex.
pressly provided by sec. 3lst of article of
our constitution that Corporations may be
formed eeixsa geneEa sstsws, b1t Shall not be
created by SPECIAL act, except for municipal
purp9S0a ~ - 81 Of the same article
Of the legislature tUl loSside for the organiza- @
ton of cities and incorporated villages and to
This e sssTsan, Wherever eve lodged
In the laDguaga,Nf amilten. afterwards sub.
stantially adopted by.the Supreme Court of
the United States in the case of Mccullough
VS.. the State of Maryland a VIII t. 4245 !:
Every power vested in government is in its
nature sovereign, agd includes by force of the
term right to employ all the means requisite
and fairly applicable to the attainment of the
ends of such power7and which are not pre-
cluded by restrictions specified in the constitus
tion or not immoral nor contrary to the essen
tial ends Of poltiesl. sdbiety." But it is con-
tended that the legislature could not delegate
its authority to create corporations to the
County Court.
The power of the king to grant license to
a subject for the creation of a corporation was
formerly d puted in England But it has
long been settled, ana is now established be-
yond rg~.that the sovereign may
grant license'To one or more of his subjects
to create corporation or to create corpora
tions genss hfor..i is said Qui facit per
alum, fac1 per Sc, and the persons to
whom the powd-is delegated arc only the in
straments.ih' 'sthe hands of the government.
The acts of the Instrument in these cases be-
come the acts of the mover under the familiar
mdssffn aBove mentioned" (Angel on Cerpo-
ratioaGo
This doctrine has been recognized and acted
upon in several of the United States. (See
case of-Sfs Marys Church, Serg G Rawe.
Penn. Rep. page SIT and cases there cited)
L have thus alluded to the power of the
Legislative to delegate authority to establish
corporations because the point is raised by re.
lator's brief.
;aBnt 1t seems to me that by the act under
rwMeh the Town of Nevada became corpo.
ration there is no such delegation of power as
Is contemplated by the authorities above re-
ffrred to.
tthe lst section of the act of March 9th,
1880, it is provided that "Whenever majority
of the inhabitants of any town or village
Wi bin this state who shall be qualified eIec.
fs under the constitution and laws of this
State and SHALL have resided in such town or
village thirty days, shall present petition to
the county court of the county, setting forth
the metes and bounds of their town and com.
mons, with plot Of the same, and praying
that they may be Incorporated, &C., aud the
court shall be satisfied the population of such
town exceeds two hundred in number, and that
majority of the inhabitants thereof have
signed the petition, the said court shall declare
Sdlu IoWn incorporated.
BY the above section it appears that the
Legislature have seen fit to pass general law
for the incorporation of towns and villages.
whereby they are entitled to become corpora
tions, when it shall appear that the number of
inhabitants in any such town or village ex-
ceeds two hundred and that majority thereof
desire to become Incorporated. Here then the
number OF inhabitants and the wish of the
majority become facts TO be ascertained by the
court upon the hearing of evidence, aud the
decision is judicial act, (Ex-parte Knowles,
Sup. Court, Cal. July term, 1851 and as such
proper question for adjudication in that
court to which jurisdiction is given by the con-
stItutlon In special cases-in cases not known
to the general framework Of our laws" for by
special cases. do not understand that the
Trainers OF the constitution intended las is sug-
gested by relator) what is technically known
in practice as q especial case. for no such
ease" could arise in which the court where it
originated, or an appellate court, would not
have jurisdiction. Here then the county
court decides only that there has been com.
pllance on the part of the inhabitants with
the requirements of the law, from which it
follows that they are entitled to the benefits
winch the law confers, and the declaration of
the court declaring such town Incorporated is
but Judgment in the case before it.
The case of the application of an insolvent
debtor for discharge under the insolvent law
is similar in principle to the one have been
considering. The insolvent presents his petit
ton, and on showing a compliance with the re-
quirements OF the statute, receives his discharge
by the Judgment of the court. Yet l appre-
hend 1t would not in such case be contended
fnra bo1 ofoJ+ 20 4l,o
any Legislative power, or that the action of the
court was not strictly judicial.
l will not say that in the investigation of
this cause doubts have not arisen as to the con,
stltutionality of some portions of the statute !;
but the plain letter of the law, the evident in
tent of the legislature, should not, hold, be
disregarded and set at naught without graver
cause than to my mind has been offered.
Wherefore it is ordered that the defendants
have and recover judgment for their costs of
sniff