Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1876-12-02
lFy,NeToH0WNsHIP BONDS
DECIDED T'BE VOID BY JUDGES
KREEL AND DILLON.
rudoa Dil,a's Decision Covers All
Lafayet, County Townsnlp
Bonds.
THANKS.

BOnQS.
Thanks.
Tho following, the opinion OF Judge kenel
u .."f r :iikbrids vs.. Lafayette county
snit for interest "Opens OF county bonds
~ : cIrcuir ourt, western district Mo-;
Nov. term, lsI6;by, krekel, 3uuse. COUNT
49, -. ~ cnmnon, jtach-d from Laiayet. county
hnna. IT. ~ meas that IN May, lsSs twenty,
AZ. t..-nsvers o Lexington TOWNSHIP n ssia
county nefitlOna the county COURT ,.nah;n
election Of tho dalihed voters o, y Of az IN
~ s,onId na ma5eto the capital stoc OF the St.
Ionis andsi 'Josph railroads. corpoa,ioh WHEN
bdore that i'm had Seen IsrIection wns
sSsrsl laws O the state; that ans,eot.uu mn'
S.S ard ga .otes cast for the suDscfiption,
ami is again.t l.: that the countyySo,uui. If III
thereof '.being satisfied tiiat had ,iven
IT, ! tn,r-to.D on thath day OF July,
ises subscribed stock to the mount ser Gut IN
th~etax-paysrs' petition .o IN appointing Judge
sshdeld' the presiding j, ste TO- make the s1 ID
scri.Iion which ne reportso nave zone on tne
9Th lay OF July following. n ra;ir".,I con,n,nv
bons were delivcrea 10 IS that on the ID OF
Msrt. 1869. the court ppointeu one i-et'oh,
axen of the county ''tcast .ie SG.e ~ Gu
couny and represent q companv and to re.
ceive he hnr,s of said ,unty when Issued. ana
hold ne san,e until sa company comply WIN
the coalitions OF theiSou,iast, 1s.h a., -
MarcS s sasa and deferred to agent Letton.
r. fnrtor ,nn..rs ON the evidence that the
St. Lous ana st. Jc;pn rSiiIoau 1o1apanS we" y,
organizel on Jsn: ON ,I p.ch%ond in isay coun-
ty hy Wa. of Plattluig to st. Joseph IN Bncn-
| anan couity. thut edmond Is nine mics from
I,pxInotoI Iownsp and on tine opposite sue OF
the MiSso,ri ri,r; that another corporation
| known "a he St louis and st. Joseph railroad
| onmnany ,outHn division was organized un-
l. nfnfn IN tho INN fA
dor The GENIAL sws Oh inc s.a'e on Tue ~ ,r uay
Richmond II "A Djnt on tile bank oil the Missouri
| river onuoste lexington, which road was 70
constructed ad is now IN operation me DOnts
| are is,ued IL and in the name OF, the county
of Lafayetn,. plomislng to pay the ST. Louis nAo
St. ,Jossna raiIpad company or bearer, recltlnH
that they a:e lsued under and pursuant 10 ~
srder OF the comfy court Of Lafayette county ey
authority OF arnct III the general assembly u
the state of Missouri, approved March 2Srd. 1855
entitled an uct } facilitate the construction o.
railroads in thetate Of Missouri, and authorlz'
ed bv y vote L the people, taken May 23rd
lSaS.'
Whatever NV have been the power OF tn
county of LafietIe to subscribe stock under tn
| general raIlroi law, and the constitution o
Missouri in u llroad outside OF, anu not toucn
ing the COuntys unnecessary TO determine, 10
the bonds, irC which the coupons sueu on nav
been detached upon their face show that the!
| were issued uier the act of 23rd March, 1855
| known in AiyourI as the township railroad act
The questions, had the county for, and on tn
| CColl - = ~" Ioh1P thV Po"NA
last named t6ubscrlbe stock and issue bonos II
payment? Te section OF the township act un
der which tn taxpayers applied Tor tho vote =
be taken prCides that whenever twenty-nv
| persons, taxpayers aud residents, of any nun
lcipal towniiP for election purposes in an
county in tbs state, shall petition the count
court of sue count setting forth their desire
as i TOWNSHIP, to subscribe to the capital stoc
of any railrad company in this state Duiidln
or prOposinfO build a railroad into, thrOug
or near SUE township, and stating the amour
| 0f lrsh Srrl.yrinfif.l And fha terms and como,
lions on witch they desire such eubscriptlo
shall be mae, it shall be the duty OF the count
court as son rs may be Thereafter 10 order q
election to e held in such township to uetermlH
if such subscription shall be made: which elst
ton shall h conducted and returns made i'll "
cOrdance With the law controlling general an
special eleslons; ana II IL snaii appear iroW :,
returns of,uch election, that no loss OF II
qualified v(ers of such township voting at SIC
election, &c in favor Of such subscription,
shall be th,duty Of the county court to nal
1t will bDbserved that under the provision
this law th railroad to which . subscription
autlOrizedtO be made, must be ''building
proposing o build a railroad into, through
near suct township The starting point
the rsilrad to which the subscription W
made ID finn Richmond, on the opposite 81
nearest pint OF Lexington township or cou
ty. The corporation organized to build tn
road SO fala as the articles of association are CO
cernsd neIr contemplated building their 70
III LAAoAkA vi AVoA S"A
Lexington township could therefore have
interest insukscriblng to this road. 1t could q
rive no benefit from this road which IL did r
already possess through the North Missouri ra
road, unless it be an indirect connection W
st. Joseph too remote al object to be taken
to account
29l, cited by plaintiffs counsel, the object
viewed BIZ the court in that case being to &C
meet = distant point by way OF u road alres
built. But 1t may be said that the object Of
| auhaPrirtinn wAa I'm connect the civ nf IeYiy
ton, anI lie >ington township through il, W
the st. Louis anu St. Joseph and Northern NJ
souri, raiiroad at Richmond, aud there is e
Hence tending IL show that to have been
case. The petition asking submission, the y
I taken and the order subscribing, where all pr
to July $, 1868, ut whioh time the southern
: vision intended 10 make the connection had
existence, 1t hayIng b,en incorporated Aug
M, lE.t: So that the subscription was to
tnrreof. fsd and not the southern dlvis
2 Show that they wS.1s-thsmselves on their {
. Lexington railroad, and not st: Louis
h ion thereof. The township railroad law
i the road ~ run Into, through or near $
township and unless 1t does SO run Il
. seems to De no authority in the township to
4 scribe. Richmond, the terminus OF the
. Louie an st. Joseph railroad, nine miles ~
from The nearest point to Lexington TOWNSHIP
y Lafayette county, with u navigable river
= tween them, caunOt he said to be near
: township or county, therefore legal autho
t was wanting to make the subscription and i,
the bonds.
The supreme court of the United States |
late case, Harshman vs. Bates county, has ca
attention to the distinction between tae COZ
tItlonal provision requiring 1.-TWO thirds Of
qualified voters Of such township voting at &
a county, city or town. and the provision
r the township act cited which requires 81
4 thirds of the qualified voters Of such town,
n voting ut such election, - and intimsted thai
q this conflict the act might be declared uncor
: tutlepal. In the case under confederation
h voting at the election voted for the subscrlp
but also that the number voting favorably
/ stitutsd two-thirds Of the qualified votsrs oi
d township.
q q The Judge delivering the opinion of the c
o In the case cited also intimates that Y to
4 n mere political subdivision of Y county, c.
not be constituted . corporate body by the
islature under the constitution ofMissouri vi
enum.rates counties, cities or towns. so u
% avoid the requirements OF the constitution
NJ garding subscriptions. If this be the opinio
the supreme court, 1t would seem that all
r. scriptions made by counties for and on be
of townships would be void.
CHI The remaining question in the case under
r. liberation To determine Is: Whether All limo
lat iolder Tor value is bound to ascertain 81
'es peril whether the bond he purchased il is
'e- under the township act wa. issued to =
an which ran into, near or through such tc
,es s shI ,hs Il Togia seem to be his duty. as
inths payment depends. lDilon on Corr
TINS; sec. 425, 18th Ohio, 1s3 This is a
ppvision; and differs from conditions
To- clss of cases. the issuing of the bonds has
Ir. Uniformly held to imply that the condl
ageed upon between the parties before
Issue have BEEN fulfilled or waived. For
-. of!egal authority to issue the hands the cou
DO not constitute q legal Indebtedness. j
JET mat Will therefore be rendered for defenda
~ Jldge Dillon tsee his views as written GU
iE living and Smith for plaintiff.
alexander Graves for defendant.
IN DILLON, CIRCUIT JUDGE
G. Without expressing any opinion whether
at, VS. Il want OF power to issue the bonds OF
of Sr.und that the railroad company to whic
subscription WAS made and the bonds issua,
Law no one whose line OF F0ad was ~tsnear'' Il
am township; or if it be not :'pear'' the town
A. whther, under the recital in the bond, thi
j. coud avail to defeat a recovery by q bona
holter for value. concur in the result o.
ground that the case is controlled by IIarsl
W vs.. iates county. decided by the United :
49, suprme court, at the October term, 1875.
b. Judgment of the court in that case held tn
ty, OF March 23rd, 1858, recited III the bonds
ISIS, authorty FOR their ISSUE, unconstitutional
this Il ne only act authorizing township bt
like ttee here in suit, ever passed by the
at erXi Assembly OF Missouri. The circums
IN this case that two thirds of all the vote
* the township dill in fact vote for the sub.
81 ton is without legal Significance and G
have the eject to validate the act Of March
1868, in respect 10 the matter in whict
er' supreme court holds it to conflict with the
IN stitution,l requirement.
judgment tor the defendant.
~ Ewing& Smith for plaintiff; Alexander G
for defendant