The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1860-04-14

have looked carefully at the case OF
Young Stokes OF al. W. Scott County, Md
nm clearly OF the opinion that it does not
override any OF tho previous cases referred
70 ia this opinion. Indeed, it could scarcely
have bssn the intention Of the court 10 over
rule these cases without saying 80. Young
Stokes OF al. was decided ct the Desember
term, 1859, and we have seen thai % ! ate a.
the June term OF the same year, ths Court
had af6t med the doctrine established 10 the
previous cases. The case OF Young Stokes
+ Go. W. SCOTT County was an application
for an Injunction to restrain the county from
issuing ths bonds.
In the previous eases, from Clapp W. Go.
dar County to Jenkins w.. Robb, the bonds
had been issued and they were in the hands of
innocent purchasers. The Court, therefore,
in those cases, though entertaining doubt as
to the true construction OF section ia OF the
Code, aoquiescsd in the previous decisions
Judge Wright himself, expressed his acqui-
escence in MoMillen W. the County Judge
and Treasurer of Lee county. hut when the
case of Young Stokes at 81. W Scott County
arose, under wholly different circumstances
| and involving none OF the evil consequences
alluded to by Judge Woodward in Clapp W
Cedar County, Judge Stockton concusrsd
with Judge Wright in restraining the issue Oh
the bonds. Judge Woodward dissentsd al
together even in this case. Judges not unfre-
quentIy feel constrained to aoquiesce in set
tied decisions, even against their clear con-
| victon OF what the Law 10. So IL vas,
presume, with Judge Stockton in the case Of
Clapp VS.. Cedar County and the case follow
| ing that decision. But when the question
arose involving wholly different consequent
| css and different circumstances, Judge Stock
ton might with great propriety return to his
original opinion. Judge Woodward, indeed,
very distinctly intimates in Clapp ". Cedar
County that the judgment OF the Court would
have been different but for the mischievous
consequences OF overruiing the previous sd-
| judication.
Hence 10 Young Stokes and others vs..
Scott county, We End Judge Stockton declar-
| ing in the same breath that the counties of
this State, under the provisions Of section
| ll4-ll6 OF the Code, have no power 10 sub
scribe TO the capital stock OF railroads and
Issue county bonds in payment Of the same,
and that the State approves Of the previous
| adjudcations in Clapp ". Cedar County,
these cases, In mr. opinion, the plaintiff vas
consistent in bis position, in view Of ths
ground upon which the Court placed thsi,
Judgment ia the frst case which arose wher
be Was upon the Bench. Nor do | sse any
reason to suppose hs viii ever rscede from
the ground be then occupied in > case in
volving she same circumstances. Indeed, b,
i declares in express terms that his opinion
remains unchanged, that in these cAsss Oh,
PLAINTIFF were entitled 20 recover.
IL must be admitted by all that Ii ID ct leas
a question OF doubt whether the counties Ar
authorised by section ia OF tho Oods TO sub
scribe to the stock OF railroads. Ii would b.
. very poor compliment TO the supreme judi
cial tribunal Of Iowa to say that, wisheu
! doubt, the counties are not authorized 10 liz
sue these Bonds.
Certainly the action of our Supreme Cour
will Justify Us in saying that tho authority o
the counties is at least doubtful.
Suppose, then, it 10 . question OF doubt, i
whose favor under the circumstances of thi
case should shat doubt be resolvsdf
} Should Is DO received in favor Of tho coun
ty which is in Full enjoyment Of the railroa
: and which still owns the stock, or in favor Q
: the innocent purchaser Of the bonds, VIII
: has given his money upon the faith OF .
/ many judicial decisions In other words
shall il be resolved in favor OK that which
manifestly just or that which 10 manifest
Q unjust?
! But even il the Supreme Court OF III
Q State should change front upon this quea
!, ton, this tribunal could not follow them
J The Supreme Court OF tho United States
. the case Of the Piqua Branch Bank vs. KnooI
: l6 Howard, 376, held that sin constituting u
4 constitution OF State, this Court will ado
assttied construction exis ting when the cor
q tract in question was made, acquiesced in
4 oil branches of the government, and under Il
j: authority OF which the contract was enter
. into, and reject more recent decision by Il
i highest Court Of the State, as not affording
j. rule for such case"
d This sound and just principle 10, it vi
2 fbe seen, conclusive upon this Court, in d
a case ct the Bar.
ID The demurrer 10 therefore overrulsd.
y j. NJ. LOVE.