Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1878-04-18

received careful consideration of at least one
member of the Supreme Court, and which, if
your Honor reads, will carry conviction to
your mind. Ifyou conclude the facts OF the
case are as there stated, your Honor will
grant the Injunction temporarily
What does this question involve? Three
men, to take care of the roads and bridges of
the county-not internal improvements hav-
ing authority to repair court.house-not to
build one; body elected without the sup
port of single taxpayer Of York that those
three men should be made the custodians OF the
people of York, and have the power of deter
mining for the people of York whether or not
they would levy tax that power which a
Legislature would hardly attempt to take
upon themselves-to make subscription to
a railroad. If they are allowed by this Act to
subscribe 100000, why not million?
If your Honor were presented with stat
ute declaring that Roberts, Allison and Ed
wards might subscribe for railroad IN be-
half of York county, you would stand back
with horror. Before admitting that it would
have force, you would wish to ascertain
whether or not the Legislature had the au-
thority to give such monstrous power to
three men.
The State does not declare that the Coun-
ty Commissioners shall have the authority,
except by fine construction of words. The
County Commissioners seek to claim that they
have the power by CHASING themselves as
the proper authorities, and ignoring the peo-
pie. Should that be the question to decide,
you will not decide 10 their favor.
Counsel then referred to the admirable
argument of Col. Rion, printed in the Glenn
case, showing that this case is similar to that.
The questions are as to the parties and mat
ters involved in that case. Have these deten-
dapts, other than the Railroad Company, de-
rived any equitable rights other than we ask
of the Court3 We say if these bonds had
been originally put out without authority OF
law-if the County Commissioners had no
right to subscribe, and if the case of Glenn IS
no protection to defendants, so far as the de-
PENDANTS to this suit are concerned, they have
no remedy. They are simply holders of void
securities, and are bound to deliver them up to
be destroyed, and cease to negotiate them. 1t
has been argued that if they are void, it makes
no difference; but it does. 1t is cloud up
on the people of the county and their proper
ty. The Court of Equity is interested in pre-
venting those void securities from being pass
ed upon innocent people.
We are not bound by the Glenn case IN
any sense. We were not parties to that suit
1t is claimed that because the County Commits
sioners were parties to that suit, all the peo
pie of York county are bound. l face the
proposition that we are bound by that decls.
ion. An action is brought against three Of
fcials, who had usurped authority to which
they had no right, and the proposition IS
made that these three men, in violation of
their duties, were representatives of the coun-
ty of York. In the original case, the county
was not party. I admit the corporation of
York includes the people of the county, but
not that three officers. who are sued for vlo.
laton of their duty, can estop the rights OF
the people, There must be identity of inter-
est. How could these three men represent
the people7 1t would be more plausible to
represent the relators as representatives OF
the county.
This is an action on the part of the State
of South Carolina, as the being from whom
these public officials have derived their au-
thority. 1t is the people coming in to ask
protection of the Court from breach OF
trust of oficials-a case without prece-
dent-one that has been moulded by the ne
cessities of later days. Counsel then cited
cases in support of the proceeding of institu-
ting the State as plaintiff, and continued: We
say, then, your Honor will be forced to the
conclusion that we are not bound by the
Glenn case. In the more recent case of Har-
ris against Robertson, if it does no more, it
settles the fact that the Glenn case is not
precedent
The next question is, assuming for the sake
of argument, that the judgment in the Glenn
case was procured fraudulently. | do not
know the necessity of reply to what was said
on the other side. 1t was painful to him and
to US; but in a matter involving the conse'
ouences of this issue, it would be false deli
cacy iu US to have the consideration for sen.
timentalisn counsel on the other side has
suggested. The charge comes from the de-
velopments made by the commission to ex-
anime evidences of the Indebtedness of York
Upon the disclosures made by that investlga-
ton, it became the duty of York county to
have that matter brought to the attention of
your Honor. Had it been shown that this
fraud had been perpetrated, and the court OF
chancery afforded no redress, then it would
have been the duty of York county, and
South Carolina, when appealed to, to insist,
and be deferred by no false sentiments in pre-.
venting this burden from being imposed on
the county. 1t is an aspect of the case
should like to avoid, and shall only refer to
it by calling attention to some authorities
The Judgment in the Glenn case was tainted
by fraud The theory is that as the decree of
the Circuit Judge was not reversed, it should
stand. 1 submit the whole record as faint
ed thing Fraud devoids all judicial acts
and entering into the record Of court, no
court of justice regards that decision.
1t is said, no matter what the vices OF these
bonds originally, the subsequent legislation
validates them. In matters Of common con-
tract, two things are required-6rst, that
the principal knew of the act Of the agent /;
and secondly. that he approved it. Here is
an usurpaton of power, by which debt of
Que hundred thousand dollars is saddled upon
the people of York. There is nothing to
show that the Legislature approved the sub
scription. In 1873 the Act of incorporation
was passed. In 1875 the retiring Act. Is
there anything showing that the Legislature
knew of the provisions of the previous Act
The Legislature took it for granted the bonds
had been issued in regular form. That ques-
ton was brought as strong point in the
Harris case but the Court says the questions
involved in the Glenn case are still open to
be settled
l confess l feel somewhat skeptical as to a
decision vet to be published, as affecting the