The Tipton advertiser. [volume] (Tipton, Cedar Co., Iowa) 1856-1962, 1857-01-24

IA ~ IL III l. l. ~ ~ 49,
definite negotiable heavily with the lug
the case in Is, soL,ons report confidently by Judge
Gran. question Of the rgh. Of the canal ana
esae lis bonfs this right properly
exercised The main ia the right
pa. holding bonds collateral and the right purchasers
We pass The under Sec 1852 Of ce al
parry state in his edgs many grounds Of defence as
NAV think material The defendant flied amended which
forth "a that there Of record on s ." the e0s"y court
The amended answer sets up tina. on March 1883 the county
Judge question be submitted wheher the county VIII
Railroad through tho county BY subscribing
6y dollars Capital Stock the Lyons Iowa Central
Railroad Company said amount to be expended only ue M
ad Railroad being aud pnnng centrally through the M
ouny be applied the construction the same
1.-THE limit; county The The amount r mus
This the will observe only the order OF the court Tor Inc
mission.
The record under dale of 2nd Nav 1853 wherein the county
Judge election April &C. but does not give
The numder Of votes the result Of the vote al large as % 2
law ond concludes by ponouncng Judgement upon the vote i" M
lowing and "n'n,eI'gOe ma"nrr- therefore IS ooh f
ha sand being OF ii all the legal votes es o
and against the proposition aforesaid! ~ "a
The record under date especially worthy OF attention.
county Judge sad Railroad wM be constructed centrally
brcugh Cedar couy that the said subscribe $4,000 the
apa stock of said Railroad company aud the same De pa 'o "
',he coun,ys issuing fifty bonds &c &C. -ae
Judge record confess ourselves
,y appear SAID Railroad would be CONSTRUCTED the
county subscribe 50 900 dollars the Stock the Railroad
did shall be made thus appear the county
However this may be- especial attention ish court to
the following satsments-vH:
ALI thai the March 1853 the county Judge
made order fora submission OF certain questions the people Of the
BY follows proof that this other
question ever in submitted or waited upon
2nd There is ,oang in The record on Shouting four rsek
notice notice q The Submission Of TIE CUES 10" 10
oo thus pon the rrsr totally silent Was any notice Of any
gnens Was newpop the and notice
through medium Was gwen by posting as required by Sec
lis O the code?
Were any requirements complied w.h' The
Statute particular requiring all cases set least four we notice
Was this done! Between the OF the order aud the h oil A
scarcely more than four weeks INTERVIEWED Look at the record ana M
who CAM The deenden aedged that no such notice was a
given and the below held that This defence not good unless
accompanied with the further allegation hat The plaintiff knew ~
when took tie bond
3d. There beng nothing TO so~ Aa. any, If ~hnt proposition
rod by The people, does NOT appear that provision 10 ry
accompanied proposition which any Sec lle ohs
Code is Of none ege,t AMI Uotd. ....
4 opostton ted and The result of The rOte not ener-
ed large The record required by Sec. l9 of the Code
The record does show that proposition was had but
does show what that proposition 1t any proposition was 10 a
submitted have been materially different from the one ordered
by the court .
complied WITH has the force and effect OF an Acl oil the
General Assembly.
subscribed any The Sock IF sad r. Company for The
Of he stock and for that Only Bonds aos 10 ISSUED nor does
Ps' '' Inc ''""y ' ''"' ''' '''' '' az ~ w
Ibis court shall assume or these matters there evidence
otherwise proposition submitted, and that The
proposition County Judge ordered submitted the
o on and that Norcr and due was given still we maintain
county Judge had legal right these Bonds
exceeded his have shown his
not binding We call especial
pheoloey order submission. 1t 'W the county
a through the county, by subscribing
$50 capital stock Lyons Iowa Central RAJ Road Co.,
be expended only of sad Rail Road being
constituted and centrally through the SAID county and only
applied the the within tie limits OF the
county"
Thus fundamental equIr the submission the money
expended road
and 'appied in the county
The people OF the county well be supposed would hesitate
limited qualified
that they did with unless obtained road
Tor the purpose
the issued
the language oil the Judge being
the County Judge that said Rail Road constructed
"elc.
All We have that the people did in favor Of
exPend 900 dollars their when Judge Bse should
be satisfied that the road WOULD E BuILr!!!
The amended that the road built
The aony The Bonds expended wn Ms limits county
To Plaintiff
aimed the demurrer diendu stood by anen1d
and the rendered judgment (see bill
No; q also Jud
Nappea plain OF bonds under
totally unauthorized fraud people county,
the Judge exceeded his these bonds binding upon
The people we'll understood aud the Railroad we'll
knew that by the the sn the
expended the applied
the limits
these only did the people the the loan. The
ded
constructed and that proceeds Of the bonds applied
construction OF the road within the lmts the county
OF them by the Judge direct the
thereon.
The