The New York herald., 1877-08-28

prsns Court u the STAT. srfmsa the aesrse The
oomplsiaast thsrseIss sssd ests ~rt o. erFef snd
Ir ,As srsumsnt here a sss lssisiss by n. 1send-
an, In error .h., isis essr, hs. no lsrsd''ss ,hs
case. We w.i nrss ee.s,asr ,hs eelsei..a fhs ,,h
u void Tor many rs.ssus. s1d si8nrs thsm ltst
eong,es -th eeussss eiasss u a. u
where jsasnsss o. decree n srssssi - sss essrs
BY oi error 20 state eosrt ior rsss~ ihs
mur. coTc ~ithln ens sf lhrss s.is. srs-s =
l. There must have tson dr.~n 10 qs~tios me
under ,he un1Isa sssiss sna 100 dssson A. al n.ss
been against the clam ~heh sibsf ~sa feisa spsn 10
2 or there must have bsss drs.a IA sus.s.oa
statute Of or authority essrcised under stats. uGoa
s1s .,1s shs ss.s siss 90 ~. .ss p,
have 1een 10 iaser oi Ne ssidH5 q shs ts ~
g. Or rishs ms q have been eiausa auasr ths csn.
stmatiou. OF treaty. % lao Of % ~ satss of
mission held OF auihors sr.Fe.s-a ssssr ths aiisd
rlght 80 claimed. liiey. stat. ls2. To-
Haskell "a Wall. - wssioa w cIis cesasa u
wealth, wsL, asab
Here lnsrs draws "A ssssilas ne suthsr,y ever
ing the ordinance imposing the lsn sotnrlslnsd et
The question rsissd sas az 70 nsrepoEnsnry % TIE
fayor OF the valday sf the aslhorIty 90 s4sf
csec. rlsia vas also eaisnsa snasr the constiia-
tion OF the unted states be decirlon adverse
to ths caim Tho case Ia lhsrcfese .mbIn too q ths
cacgores We have stated fhs Jsr'-ci.on.i ohlscsen
rbis brings us 20 the consaara,on 81 ne cass upon
Its merits. whcshsr the claims shica give Joris
dietioo are well iounded - the question: 20 ee con
sidered
cause u ascssres that ''ne state shaa pas sny lAx
impairpg the obligation OF c0btracls.H
The act OF 1859. before metionsd iorb.ds sny osu-
pany to do the busipess of ,nsst-scs tue ssh
General state Bcfvfe ebtsnins such osfuao4ss
every company Is required 10 iurnsb s.era sists-
Upon being satisfied of the truth Of ne sla,s meat
he Is r,quircd 10 issne the eerlhoats. ne .
ming each statement and a lee OF g. 10 iur
cacn certificate. The niin section d~cl.res thai
license fees are enacted from Georgia cempsnies 10
any other state shall be exactcd from compsules
OF sucn state ~ Georgia. 1. does not appear ~ the
record that any Georgia Insurance company aoins
business In New YORK ia the year lsst
THIS section. therefore does 40, effect The ease 10
hand The act contains other aiiusion 20 the sub
joci Of taxation IL does nos. ,heIeIere, car
es%ssr'Ss o%ss "a. ~ s,.,y .sy degree hs ,snss
within the state clothed with such authority IA lsh
both, In tina respect standing just where they would
taned no stipulation expressed IMPLIED that either
should DO thereby In anywise liniied or restrained
should hot be imposed There o difference between
the other license tax and the one here 10 question
| Mr. Justice swsyne delivered the opinion.
MUNICIPAL BONDS BKiSo REGULAR ON rnKIR vAcE rnr
COUNTY s gsroPFkD TO DEsr coEYLiAscx wirn
No ls2 Tho County Of Dallas, In the State Of Mis-.
souri, plaintiff In error, VS.. JOIN w. MacKeuzle.--
In error TO tho Court Of the unned states
for the Western district OF Missour. -fhis
case comes before the Court upon demurrer
to the answer. In his complaint the pisinun
alleged that the defendant ISSUED certain bonds by
which It promised to pay TO the Lacede and Fora
to order OF the County Court; that the bonds re
cited that they were issued pursuant TO an order
tho 18th Of May 1871, and amended on ,ho 10Th of
June and tho 18th day OF August or tue year
by authority granted iu the charter of sad comnauy
| hy aelp oved III nj la fl..s
for value and the bearer OF certain coupons at
tached to sa,d bonds and entitled to recover the
amount thereof, by reason OF which he AYERS
debteoness to him In the sum o! So 500 with interest
| from the various dates mentioned.
To this the defendant answers denying that IL
promised 10 pay the bonds IN the comp amt is
alleged; denying that by It's writings or coupons II
| caly set forth, aLd dehyng that the plaintiff was
| the owner for value OF tho coupons sued TOR.
The answer further defence that the bonds
referred 10 recite that they wero issued pursuant to
certain orders OF the County Court oi Dallas county
(Which are Of he dates specified IN the complani.
and AYERS that orders authorizing tho issue Of
such bonds were ever made by the said County Court
reci.ed, but that two oi the justices OF sad
traudulcnty and corrupty, but not rs court
made certain other order set forth. but
upon conditions which were not complied
frauduleny and corrupty issued, and without author
ty and that at the date o s,d issue the annual
mcnt OF the county OF Dallas was less than 81 00O
county already subscrbsd 70 the capital OF
| said railroad the sum OF $l50,00Q
10 this answer the piantin dsmurred upon tho fol-
| loving grounds
l. That did not facts sufficient 70 constitute
! 2 That its admissions were su1lc,ent 10 euttle the
plainLH 10 recover.
g. That denials wore inconsistent with its adms-
sions
4 That 1t was not necessary 10 ale tho bonds, tho
coupons being nled the court
5. That puintin being the bearer OF the coupons Is
sufficient and ownership beng immateriaL
8. That the norty of the Court issue the bonds
under the special law Incorporating the Lacledo and
Fort Scott Railroad Company Is not denied.
7. That II admits their ISSUE ana does not deny tho
| authority 10 issue them rccitcd IN them.
| 8. The bonds on their face import compliance With
the law, aud defendant 's stopped from denying the
regularity OF such compliance.
9. Ii does not charge plaintiff with knowledge OF any
OF the alescd frauds In the issue OF the bonds. The
demurrer is general to the whole answer The answer
is ntcrposcd under system oi pleading which alo
numerous and inconsistent deiencex II, therefore,
the answer contains any good defence, Inc demurrer
Tue complaot gives no copy OF the bouds 1t sim
ply says that they we're issued TO railroad company
named, aud that they reci,ed that they were
| Court Of Dallas county, made the 18Th day
Of Nav, 1871, and amended on the 18th day
| OF June and tho l2th OF August OF tic same
year, and that this was by authority granted in tho
charter OF tho railroad mentioned. In this
sitons first, that the charter oil the com
pany. gave authority TO the County Court
that authority. Both of these averments arc jurs-
dctional, ana If either does not exist bonds can
certained by reference 10 the statute; second IL
matter OF TACT TO De determined upon the peadngs
tLc proofs.
! at shall DO lawful for the county court OF any
county in tho State TO subscribe to the capital
ssGSN ,ssc Of sad a.. e0mpaoy sss Tss Of No.
| sefexecutng power II Is an authority 10
the county, and until aIirmatvely actoi upon pos.
more force than II did not exist The de-
fendant his answer, denies that this authority was
exercised by the county at the dates mentioned
any time We think the plaintr erred IN
demurrng TO the answer and thus admitting that the
county had exercised It's power lSmith vs.
Sac Co., ii WALL l4sl
The demurrer is overrucd on all the other points
also and judgment given Ior the defendant Mr. Justice
Hunt delivered the opinion.