, 1876-09-08

upon betwscn them. II il also ca!nnd IN the hiil
a. gronnl Wy the Court shonla Interfere, TINT
law 10 mako this contract ia the way they propose
to make + under Tho e'rumstanect; thatthere ara
Hoard to incnr indebtedness At ts ttmc nnlcr Tho
which, Nner tho facts n t'ls case II alleged arr
In the way of this contract ncing entered Into and
saldavts iaye leen aled, ID Tb!eh psrt,es of
their own knowledge NJ 10 .ha iaess ot which they
Us tendency 10 sllow, that thSso allegations as
tu sfaud and torruntlon may b8 true.
on THE PART or THE DEFENDANT
answers harc come In denying al these allegations
% es fsa and .smpronsf, Sondsc oa ss'ing to
thsse rnger. + IL asked o. NJ one hand. that tn
ean s ani IL dm gohnS Il
junction be rcfuaed '''~
=, The defendants 70 start with muke, this point:
90 relief Of thls description; that hs does nat
msor u kc v ,scse
thsso tngs, snte him to al. aiif iii 4 EVseiis an inss
yIdual; that whsteEer Interest ia may have in II,
est; and that, therefore, It my bill wonlA lie, II
sa1 o9 p T. HbteS ses s peons q s q.
viz ny haye a interest = .iis Lind. n sap:
EuEt VI UuJCCS1Uu AHkuUElLtEH arc TEECTTtQ
York, Michigan, and. In other siatcs. This
9%ssVt9n 1 uR pefeas Ds In tho :.e q
some months ngo, with reference to tho purci,ase
Of the abstract. books; and hnd occasion In thnt
eoss ss &C 'pd Sns
oi optnion, a. then oppressed il, that thni ohcc.
tlon wou'A not lie under tho decision of The Courts
to say that that waa the rae which wo should b
governedsbY., Al mentioned in that case, = 70.
ma5 W. ,sd made BY .hs sup5eme courtby tho
Chicago, which, viewed BY, itself and
eoar ms Pehaps @ vas5sn. 1ags fsHs iba tse
our supsoino Court took. he ssme Wow u Till
subject as vas takon BY the Courts OF Now York
to decide ihe csso- But tho remark come in Incl.
dental1y; The caso did not tntn upon H. and do
sss nS' ha tsk i Nv s s ss 1t RI. &C. S @ css' se M e
recognize il; do moi etso that construction 81 tho
vi oosst hs5s cited 5s RSn qn cssgo;essn :;1g,o
ts dosrine that holders Or tasabo n
teutra!n municipal corposations from transeonding
thsir a, sTf'l powe5s ac violating their lcea an
. Mt. JUDGMENT Is
that that 9at be scatod BY the Courts Of this snte
a. Gl sho d dofisino e th.s State until tho Supreme
ns 10 uudarstand tIat thcT do not iniei,i 70 ado
OF adhere 10 tho doctrine. / understand them 10
havo laid that down In numerous cAscs: An effort
lie pfnsps tSst Se snptons coa cid I hs ss oo
5 5 s5 e IL { s!ss d t: iassa I'll sss ssss
all other cases. No two cases arc alike and tho
only Importance Of decisions is perhaps because
link that the principle which Is essab!lshad IN
tnsss a former doclsona nSst b considered y ~.
Objection that this conrt I'll has an 5ursdiean. @ I % '
TIE coarHAa.
Now to como to the main qucatton In tho case.
the city and county several years ago onteroi Into
an agfeemaat il roierence 10 tha' joint improve.
nap1 o on soaS pfa
state of tha. nastter 10 some cxtent-not to show @
o M te sianas s That ~ vas ss ao
gsest eai q ssyth,ae III: III ~ Wel enassseod ~ .has
Se for 70 60 nd sto bs Ereet
which would be necessary in order to Improve this
s9rs M sn. On y ret l. ss et ~ ,aa aaa does aes.
rus tas IN ssscansnt oi ths Hid eannot ba cn n.
Snt SH" It js LUG probably ,yeA an a'' aascsnoSs TSi
which could not bo enforced. Probably ihe com.
~ could not bo compcltod to oxOcuto any aurce-
1ncnt about tho Joint improvement upon some Eon-
e.nl plan Of tho Court.fiouse s,uare, although It
sf seSd ~ 5 IT. WITH hs s sn any , M thsn
Individual. al any rate, | do not think that tho
ground lot IN ia tic amended Iii, baaei npon
warrant this Cov,t In Interfering
FnAup.
The nc1t objection Is that th,s thing r. fraudulent
fiat thc Cntnmissio,,ers hnvc nnt hcrn a~nrrst"T
their judgment. Which they hayo 90 risht nma
to a1erclse,9that thew levy arc A0 not wv .ctJnT m
s.t.J. ~ IL 1.Os AH