The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1869-01-21
The Railroad Injunction Case.


DANroRrH, j. This is a bill in equity ask
ing an Injunction against the city of Belfast
and certain of its officers in regard to certain
proposed acts therein set forth. 1t is clear
that it cannot be sustained unless it comes
within the provisions of the Act Of 1861, Chap-
ter 239. Hale d ais 4. eastman It as, 9th Met
calf, 425.
1t therefore becomes necessary to ascertain
the true intent and meaning of that Statute.
So far as it has any bearing upon the question
before US, it is in the following words: 'sWhen
any city, votes to pledge its credit, or
to raise by taxation, or to pay from its treas
ury, any money, for any purpose other than
that for which it has sle legal right and power,
or any agent officer thereof attempts to pay
out the money of such city, = without au-
thorlty, the Supreme Judicial Court may, upon
the suit or petition OF not less than ten taxable
inhabitants thereof, briefly setting forth the
cause of complaint hear and determine the
same IN equity" This language appears to be
clear and free from ambiguity. There are two
cases, and only two, where the Court is author
IZed to interpose: when the city or town at
tempts to raise or pay money, or pledge its
credit for a 'purl ose" not authorized by law,
and when any ''agent or officer thereof attempts
to pay out the money of such city or town
without authority" There are no words in
the Statute. indicating IN the slightest degree
an intention on the part OF the Legislature to
require or to authorize the Court to interpose
with towns, so long as they keep within their
legitimate sphere and make such contracts as
the law authoriSeS, and raise money, or loan
their credit for the purpose" of carrying out
such contract, whether in doing they act
with prudence and wisdom, OF otherwise The
purpose, the object to be accomplished is
the test by which we are to judge of the right
OF the Court to interfere, and not the results
OF that purpose when accomplished nor the
WAYS and means by which it Is to be accom-
plished. 1t is not matter of inquiry with the
Court whether the town may, or may not have
d good defence in law to an action brought
against it, founded upon the subject matter in
regard to which complaint is made. II the
money to be raised is voted in good faith to
pay any liability or contract within the contem-
plation of law, this process will not lie, but the
town will be left to its legal remedies and de-
fences.
If a town were thus TO vote money to pay
contract for the repair Of highways, or to pay
damages arising from an alleged defect in its
ways. it would hardly be commended that in
process of this kind, the Court would or could
inquire whether there was in either case a good
cause for action against the town, or grant the
Injunction if there were not. The subject mat
ter being within the legal rights and obliga-
tons of towns and their of GERS, they must be
left free to act their interests may require,
according to their Judgment, under their legal
liabilities and the sanction of their oaths. SO
too, when the allegation is that the. agent or
CillCef ~ ABOUT 10 pay OUT money WlNOuL du-
thOrlty, the only inquiry which the Court can
properly make is whether the purpose for
which the money is to be paid is within the
legal sphere of the town, and the officer has
been duly authorized by law, or by the proper
vote.
the case before US.
By the charter of the Belfast and MooSehead
Lake Railroad Company, private Laws of 1867,
Chapter $50, Section 1873 the city of Belfast is
authorized by vote of two-thirds of it's legal
voters present at any meeting duly called there
for, to subscribe for stock Of that Company to
any amount not exceeding twenty per cent of
the amount Of its valuation. By amenda-
tory Act private Laws Of 1868, Chapter cps
Section o. the same city was authorized ''by
vote Of tEree-tourths Of the legal voters of said
city present, and voting at any meeting legal
ly called therefor, to subscribe for additional
stock to the amount of one hundred and fifty
thousand dollars 1t will be observed that by
either OF these Acts no conditions or limita-
lions are attached to the right of Belfast to
subscribe for stock, except as to the amount
and the number of votes required. Both Of
these conditions have been complied with, and
Is cDHceed that the Acts are erittia the cOnStitu-
tt00ot p07rcr Of He LcgiSl0tWe. 1t necessarily
follows that the subscription for stock by the
city, is contract within its illegal right and
power" The votes Of the city to raise money
or issue bonds, and the acts in pursuance there
were passed at legal meetings, and for the pur-
pose Of fulfilling this contract. The purpose
then is a legal and not an illegal one. In the
f'lalntlfs bill there is no allegation asserting
The iilegality OF the contract; nothing of the
knd is suggested in the arguments Of counsel.
1t is, however, suggested that there are GER
tam conditions in the contract itself which have
not been complied with, and certain malfeas-
uuces or mSieaSanceS, on the part of the cor
poration, by which the city is released from
the performance of its part of the contract.
This may all be true, and yet it does not fol-
low that because there are illegalities on the
part OF the corporation, the same, or any others,
exist on the part of the city. 1t is the alleged
Wrong-dolng OF the city, and not Of the corpo-
ration, we are called upon to remedy. If the
city has a legal defence to their contract it is
at their option to make it. The law makes it
the Judge Of its own interest in this respect
II hd0ihg beeH authorized 10 make tie contract ii
"tay insist upon such terms and conditions its
ntFjeStS may seem 70 require If subsequently it
should appear to the city that it's interests
quire a waiver of any Of these terms or cond-
tions not required by law, there is no legal OBJ
lection TO that waiver. The Court has no pow
er to interpose to control the Judgment or dis
erection OF the city, when exercised within the
limits prescribed by law
Besides, whether the conditions and terms
OF the contract have or have not been complied
with by either party, involves questions of
TACT, which the parties have right to submit
20 jury-a right which the Statute does not
contemplate shall be taken from them by this
summary process; and which the Courts, or
any third party, have no power to interfere
with.
50 fQr as the proposed acts Of the officers CONF
ploined q a." conceived, the case does not she,r
Hdt they arc lrdt0W authority" bit are Supported
Ly the cotes OF the city, legally passed IN regard to
matter upon rltch the 3aac has authorized the city
n act. Our conclusion therefore is, that the