The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1864-01-05

II. Smith, trustees, &C., Appellants,
vs.. The Cedar Rapids and Missouri
River Railroad Company.
This was an appeal from the Dissrict
Court of the United States for the Dis
trict of Iowa. In that Court bill was
filed setting forth, that on the 18th Of
March, 1858, the Iowa Central Air Line
Railroad Company made deed of mort
gage conveying to the compliments and
to Norman w. lsbell, who has since died,
sllther Railroad property, equipments,
and franchises, and also all right, title,
interest, claim, or demand. which the
Company had, or might acquire in GER
tain sections of public land, granted by
the Act.of Congress of May 10, 1856. to
the State of Iowa, and by the General
Assembly Of that State by Act Of July
IA, 1856, granted to the Company. The
. mortgage was executed to secure the pay
ment of 1000 construction bonds of
$4,000 ench. The mortgage was ac-
knowledged and recorded in the Roeord-
er's Office of the several counties through
which the read ran. and in which any of
the lands were situated. Soon after
making the mortgage the Company issued
large amount Of bonds, of which there
are outstanding in the hands OF bona fde
purchasers fer valuable consideration
more than 100000. Payment of the
coupons was refused, whereby the prin-
cipai sum became due, and there was
more than $4,000 of overdue coupons.
The General Assembly Of Iowa, at the
session of 1860, passed an act to resume
all rights conferred upon the Iowa Gem
trail Railroad Company by the Act Of Ju-
ly IL, 1896. and to repeal certain laws 10
relation thereto and, also, an act TO aid
Ia the construction of railroad through
Lyons City across the State Of Iowa, near
the 42d parallel, to the Missouri River.
Ihese acts, which are charged to have
been passed by fraud and dog rolling, =
purported 10 convey and transfer to the
Cedar Rapids and Missouri River Rail-
road Company the same lands, for the
purpose OF building another road. These
acts were passed without any notice TO the
compliments, and in direct violation of
the Constitution of Iowa and the Cons,i
tuition OF the United States The com
paInasls. therefore, prayed for decree
declaring and establishing the invaidisy
OBJ the grant to, the Cedar Rapids and Mis-.
souri, River Railroad Company, and con.
ilrmlng the title of the complainants.
The Company demurred to the bill be-
cause II did not show at what time the
mortgage was recorded; because it did
not show what number or amount of
bonds we're issued nor for what purnose.
norto whom issued; her that the bonds
were ever negotiated for or by the Iowa
eHntrpl ltsiroed Company; nor that they
or any OF them are outstanding in the
hands OF toaa t;de holders for value. be-
cause the bl!l did not show for whom the
compliments sued as trustees. Another
ground was that the bill showed that no
tltie to the lands ever vested in the COM
pialnants, their only pretended title being
an act OF the General Assembly Of Iowa.
which, II construed to vest a title in the
Company, was inconsistent with the
right, powers and duties of State, as de-
hned by the Act of Congress granting the |
lsnds. 1t vas contended that the act OF
Congress aud the act of Assembly of Iowa.
mace the title to the lands dependent upon |
the construction of the road. and the |
lands were TO be used, and used exclu.
slyeiy Tor the purpose Of aiding in the
construction Of the road, and were to he
disposed Of only as the work progressed. /
and the disposal OF them was confined to
the Legislature Of the State. 1t was.
therefore, grant upon condition subse.
quent, and the condition not having been
performed, the Legislature had a right tn
resume the grant. Another ground was
that the bill was impertinent and deiama.
tory in charging the Legislature of Iowa
WIKI fraud and corruption.
The Court below sustained the demur.
rer and dismissed the bill, and on the ar.
gument OF the appeal, the Supreme Court
ot-tbe United States sustained the decision
,f the Court below.
pAN A RsILRoAD NOT PASSING THRoJeu
CITY LEGALLY RECEIVE THE MUNIcr-
PAL AID or THAT city
Nos. 10, SO, and 8l-derman Gelpcke
w. kreutzer and Adolphus .Reiehelt,
Plaintiffs in Error VS.. The City ofDu.
huquc, Defendant in Error. = ],
This was writ Of error to the District
'ourt of the United States for the Dis
net Of Iowa These were actions on th. |.
art OF the plaintiffs. banking firm in y
he clty Of New York, to recover from :
s4 eity Off Dubuque, in the sSsats
t lowe, moneys advanced by them i,
} pay interest on the ci.y's bonds
saed to- The dubuque and Pacific
nd the Dubuque Western Railroad Com
anles. under an agreement By which the
la:utiiis agreed to protect the city. The
lty demurredt to tbs bill upon the ground O
ast the CITY had no authority to issue the i
onds, and because it was net shown thai Y
le question Of borrowing the money forlS
hlch the bonds were issued was submit
a % the citizens OF Dubuque, and ap
fosed by them, as required by the char. 8
r Jbe demurrer was sustained by the i
curt below, aud that ruling Is the error
,N assigned.
On behalf e the defendants in error !, I
as argued that the Legislature Of Iowa !
ID no authority under the State Copst,.
iion tosulhonze mubicipal corporations
J ! v 4