Ottumwa weekly courier. (Ottumwa, Wapello County, Iowa) 1872-1899, 1877-03-28
A QUEER SUPREME COURT
DECISION,

.i STOCK ~ the burlington a missouri II
River Railroad Company. This vote
was taken in September, 1853, the
building of the road from Burlington {
10 Ottumwa then being in progress, j
$4,000 in bonds Of the county were
issued in payment for three hundred ]
shares of 500 each, of the stock of 1
said company. Afterwards the coun-
ty Judge Of the county refused to is
sue any more bonds, believing that
such stock subscription was illegal.
Upon trial had, it proved to have been
illegal, and no more bonds were ever
issued. The $4,000 in bonds, howev-
er, had been sold to innocent parties,
as claimed, and these bonds in the
hands of third parties the county has
had to pay.
The contract under which these
bonds were issued provided that the
railroad company should issue stock
for the bonds Of the county, dollar
for dollar. In 1869 the situation of
this whole matter was as follows:
T he railroad company had been UNI
able TO get the $4,000, which they |
sued the county for, the Supreme |
Court of the State having decided
tina, the county had no authority to
take railroad stock but the railroad
companyhad got and obtained $50, 600
in bonds, and the county had no
stock for it. Suit was therefore
brought by the county early in 1870,
to compel the railroad company TO
issue stock for the amount of bonds
1t had received. This case was de-
termined against the county within
the last year, and an application for
new trial is now pending.
| Now we come to the subject nft.tcr
we have in view in this article, viz:
to give our readers some extracts
from the majority opinion of the
court, delivered by Judge Day, and
the minority opinion, delivered by
Judge Beck. First take the follow
ling from Judge Days opinion:
If the county had acted in good
, faith, and had sought to perform its
f contract, and had been prevented by
the interposition Of the law declaring
its contract illegal, it is difficult to
see upon what principle the county,
Q being unable to perform an agree
E ment which it did make, can insist
upon the substitution of another and
the enforcement against the defend
ant of an agreement which it did not
make. But the county, instead of
showing desire to perform its con-
! tract, seems to have determined to
: repudiate it as soon as it became APP
I parent that the road would be built
through Ottumwa and the benefits OF
the contract, in any event, secured.
Wcnev before heard of judge
in the highest court of state
SO travel outside of the record to ira
duce the people of county. Clearl!
this case presents the most undigni
: fed proceeding we ever saw exhibit
:. ed by high judicial functionary.
= In reply to this, we give the Ian
guage of Judge Beck, as follows:
x
~ vi. II is insisted that plaintiff i
70 entitled to relief on account of bat
le faith in refusing to perform the con
tract before the courts had decided
adverse to its power to issue bonds
: in resisting by legal proceedings tn
te efforts of defendant to procure per
IN Torrance of the contract by plaintiff
We do not think plaintiff can be con
: victed of bad faith in refusing to d.
>, that which the law prohibits, and il
a relying upon and enforcing its lega
c. rights. tits the duty of corporations
d as it is of citizens, to obey the law
And certainly political corporation
Of the character of plaintiff is no
guilty of bad faith in refusing to ex
crcisc powers withheld by the law
An appeal to the court to determine it
powers ought not to be the occasion
- of rendering its contracts valid which
+. in such proceedings are declared in
If valid.
d Upon this point the opinion of til,
majority in our Judgment presents
view that is impossible to be take1
l. from judicial standpoint: The de
k. cision declaring the county had no au
r. thority to issue the bonds was made il
20 this court. Now the majority of thi
court hold that the county acted il
I" bad faith in presenting its case fol
'e determination. The opinion pro
J. cecds i'll this language :"Instcad o
II showing a desire to perform its agree
ment it seems 10 have determined tt
~ Yepudiate ii us soon IFS it became ap
ID parent that the road would be bull
o through Ottumwa, and the benefit o.
Y the contract in any event secured
. For myself l may say that I fail tt
= find support in the record for tn,
Y statement OF fact here made. Blu
ri that is not the point 10 be considered
l. just now: This court held the con
tract void, made without authority il
: conflict with the law and constitu
le ton; yet a majority OF this court nov
rs hold good faith requires the count,
c. to perform this illegal contract. 1t
:: action, dono uhdepthe sanction of thu
= judgment Of this court is siigmatized
q by the word "repudliate," everywhere
le odicQS, and which is never applied II
d the refusal to perform void con
\ tract, but to the denial of the bindin.
~ force of valid obligation.
4 The above is bit Of history W,
l. have thought at the people of thi
NJ county and state should know. w
' must say, that in our opinion, it dis
. closes a judicial transaction highl
:. discrad;table to the majority Of til
court.
0,