The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1875-11-04

!
bond is only in the sum of $500 900, while
the amount of the county bonds is $3500OO
The county would sustain loss of $50, 900,
if forced to pay its bonds, though it might
| be able to collect Of the surities the entire
amount of the indemnifying bond. This
fact alone shows that remedy at law is made
quate and dOub tful.
The counsel for the defendants also insisted
that as an absolute title to the bonds passed
| to the Superior and ST. Croix Company, that
company had an undoubted legal right to
release Wabridge Bros. and Sargent from
their contract to construct the road and to
make them compensation for work done and
materials furnished by delivering them the
| $500 which they now hold. 1t may be
true that the title to the county bonds
passed by delivery to the company, but it
seems to us utterly impossible upon the facts
stated, to sustain the position that Walbridge
Bros. and Sargent are bona fde holders for
value of any considerable portion of these
bonds and entitled to protection as such.
| They have only done an incOnsiderable
! amount of work on the road and have not
! constructed a single mile nor furnished
single car or locomotive and have abandoned
their contract entirely. 1t seems to us they
stand essentially upon the same ground as
the company, and are entitled to no greater
! consideration. Their right to hold the S75,-
! 900 bonds is derived through, or founded
upon, the arrangement entered into June %,
! 1878, which we consider void and not bind
ing on the county. For to our minds the
resolution Of the County Board extending
tie time for the completion of the road and
making ther changes in the proposition upon
which aid was granted by vote of the eIec-
tors was without authority and void. The
agreement which was entered into between
! the County Board and the Superior {, St
| Croix Company and which was submitted TO
the electors when aid was voted, could not
| be essentially modified or changed by tie
county authorities. Lauson VS. Schallen, SO
| Wis, 2S6 The reason for this view is given
III the case cited, and it is because the inhab- /
itants or voters Of the county are the real
contracting party On the one side and the
railroad company on the other, the County
execute a special authority. 1t is said the
County Board had pIenary power over the
matter and could modify and change the
terms upon which aid was voted as they
| thought proper We do not, however, so
understand the act under which aid was
voted. BY the 10th and 18th sections Of
the act it Is in substance prov ded that the
| county might aid in the construction of the
| road by subscribing TO the stock of the
company and by issuing bonds for the pay
ment Of the same and to that end the County
Board was authorized to negotiate and ar
range with the company the terms and con-
ditlons upon which aid should be granted
/ But before aid could be granted or contracted
! for, the question Of granting the sumo was
required 10 be submitted TO the electors of
/ the county. THE question lgas to be tli1Fy
/ Su6uunsd: which implies that the question
a. to the amount as we'll as the terms upon
which the aid should be granted, was to be
submitted. Is is unreasonable to suppose
/ the Legislature intended to give the electors
only the right TO express their views upon
/ the mere, bald question of granting aid with
| out regard TO the amount, and without refer
! ence to the terms and conditions of granting
! it, leaving these latter matters entirely and
! wholly under the discretion of the County
/ DOdlu, According 10 on. view OF lQeSe pro-
visions it was contemplated that tie elec-
tors should express their view upon those
questions. The right was reserved to them
| Of voting upon the question of granting aid
and also upon the amount and condition of
granting the same. Nor was it competent
| for the Board to modify and change the !
terms upon which aid was voted. Here they !
attempted to change them in most impor- |
tant particulars. abe people were doubt /
less anxious to secure a speedy completion of
a railroad from the Bay Of Superior to the .
Northern Pacific in Carlton County. They /
probably thought they would secure great
commercial advantages by the early con
struction Of that road. The time in which |
the proposed road was to be completed /
would be an important element in the ques-
ton whether aid should be granted. All .
this is too obvious TO require elaboration. .
Non conStat aid would have been voted if /
the proposition had been to complete the
road by the lst of July, 1878 In this mat
ter the Board exercised the special powers
conferred by the act and they could not call
to their aid the general provisions Of law
relating to their duties to enlarge and prac
tically destroy the limitation upon their au-
thorty.
Il results from these remarks that the
second ground of demurrer is not well taken.
The order OF the Circuit Court over
ruling the demurrer is affirmed.