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

decline. But after deliberation, I decided to
grant the order, so that all the facts and points
involved in the case might be brought out.
My mind being made up, see no necessity for
delaying my opinion, nor occasion requiring that
it should be reduced to writing In rendering my
opinion, shall not give full expression to my
motion of this kind. do not think the merits
of case involving questions that have been ar
gued here to-day, should be prejudiced by a
Judge who will not have the final decision to
render.
When first heard that the County Commits
sioners of York county had assumed the respon-
sibity of making subscription on the part of
the county, of one hundred thousand dollars in
aid of railroad, am free to confess that 1 was
greatly surprised. The law bearing on the case
/ had never examined, and it seemed to me, at
the time, monstrous proceeding. When the
opinion Of the Circuit Judge was rendered, sus-
tanning the action Of the County Commissioners,
I availed myself of the first opportunity to read
sustained by authority. l subsequently saw the
decision of the Supreme Court, sustaining that
opinion, and thought the matter had been finally
settled. Hence was surprised at these proceed
hesitation that granted the rule to shew cause
why a temporary injunction should not be
granted.
ton, by less than twenty taxpayers of York
county, against large number of bond-h holders,
the County Commissioners Of York, and against the
County Of York. The relief asked is that the
holders of these bonds shall not be paid, the al
legation being made that in the opinion of the
plaintiff to this suit the bonds are illegal and
void, and that the decision Of the Supreme Court
declaring that the County Commissioners had the
right to issue them, was fraudulently obtained.
And now it is for me to decide whether or not the
Injunction shall be continued until the final hear
ing. III
gal null and void, and prays that the holders Of
them shall stay their hands and be restrained
from enforcing collection; this petition being
made a long time subsequent to legal decisions
and legislation recognizing the validity OF the
bonds. Fraud is not charged In connection with
the issuing of the bonds, in diverting them from
the object for which they were issued. WIN
The county is enjoying the benefits OF the road
The bonds have been thrown on the market and
many of them have fallen in the hands Of third
persons for valuable consideration. 1t is claimed
that these holders Of the bonds had notice that
their validity had been contested. But the mode
and manner in which they were issued has been
declared by the Courts to be legal At all events,
the Supreme Court refused to prevent their issue.
On the faith of these decisions, some have invest
ed their money and others have guaranteed the
payment of indebtedness Of the Railroad Com
pany, thereby acquiring right in the bonds de-
posted as collaterals.
is no ground for an injunction. No matter into
whose hands they may fall If void, they cannot be
enforced, and no injury could accrue to the tax
payers. BY no subsequent transfer, would the
holders protected, ifthe bonds are null ana VOID
If the County Commissioners had no authority to
issue bonds, what title would purchaser obtain
The citizen or taxpayer could not be injured by
the very reason of their invalidity. In High, on
Injunctions, page 2l5, it is laid down as law:
"he Issuing and the evying and collecting OF tax
in aid Of subscriptions railroad county court will not be
enjoned the ground Of of jurisdiction In the court to
take such proceedings without vote of the people, since sale
Of the taxpayers property unde such proceedings would not
dves the of his e and he can maintain an action al
law for the property damages for Its detention An
tire Tux or should enned the that
too much has been nssessrd- vs. Parkve etc., 2 NO.
1876, approving sayre Tompkns, % Mo-, 443
II this be law, it settles the If the bonds
are illegal they can work no injury to the tax
payer.
The case of Glenn against the County Commits
sioners was an action between the taxpayers
and the officers of the county. That case was
heard on it's merits 1t was ably argued. Learn
ed and eminent counsel were engaged on either
side 1t was heard and decided upon its merits.
In that case it was decided by the highest tribu-
nal in the State that the power to issue bonds
was conferred upon the County Commissioners,
and the injunction then prayed for refused. After
full argument, the judgment of the Supreme
Court went on the merits Of the case. or this
there can be nc doubt. That the questions in
volved were delberated upon by the Supreme
ed dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Willard,
which was on the merits Of the case, fully proves
The judgment of the Supreme Court was rendered
before the bonds were issued. After that decision
the bonds having been issued on the faith OF the
decision, citizens began dealing in them, invest
ing their money and acquiring rights.
As to the recent decision in the case OF Harris,
reator, against the County Treasurer it is claim
ed that the previous decision OF the supreme
Court s binding only as to the parties to that
suit-Glenn and others and the then County Com
missioners We have right to interpret the Ian
guage of the Court. Who are the plaintiffs to that
suit? The "tax-payers who complain, etc. Ihe
defendants are the County Commissioners The
judgment of the Court is binding between the
parties. Does the Court say that the right is re-
served to another taxpayer to bring another suit
against the County Commissioners-the same
body-though they may not be the same indlvld-
uals and renew the same controversy?
The questions then involved and adJudlcated,
are here involved, and if Ehis view be correct, we
have no right to open the questions again. In
like suit touching the exercise of like authority
by another Board Of County Commissioners, we
presume the Supreme Court would not feel bound
by the case of Glenn and others, Vs. County Com
mssioners, and this we take to be the meaning OF
that Court in Harris Us. Robertson. There are va
rious points involved in this matter. Itwould be
an irreparable injury to defendants if this tempo
rary I'M JUNCTION be granted, provided the bonds are
valid while, on tho other hand, if they are vold
the taxpayer cannot be injured by the Court re-
fusing the motion. Before the suit coud be hnal-
ly determined, many of the bondhoders may
have suffered pecuniary loss. While arestralnlng
order would necessarily work injury to the hold
ers of bonds, the refusing of it would not work
injury to the taxpayer. Besides, relief has al
ready been afforded the taxpayers: 1t IS a mat
ter of record that the Legislature by special act
suspending the collection of a tax for one year,
has given relief to that extent.
refuse the order for reasons which accord,
in my judgement, with the law and the equities of
the case dislike to exhibit the appearance OF
rendering hasty decision, but if were to inter-
pose the strong arm of the law, it would work
great injury to the holders of these bonds, many Of
whom, perhaps, are depending upon the proceeds
to be derived from them to meet pressing pecu-
mary obligations. The Court would say further,
that in addition to the injury the order would
work to bondholders-thrd parties into whose
hands the bonds have falen-that it would also
be blow to a corporation, railroad already
struggling, and, which, by such interpositon
might be forced to succumb. The order Is reus-
ed.
Whereupon, his Honor Issued the follow
ing order:
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
County of York.
The State er-relatione F. III. Brown ct a. u.s.
The Chester and Lenoir Narrow Gauge Fail
road ct al.
On this, 18th day of April, 1878, on which day
the defendants were ordered to show cause why
temporary injunction should not issue, as prayed
in the complaint; hearing the complaint and afti-
davits and argument of counsel thereon,
1t is ordered and adjudged that the motion for
Injunction be dismissed with costs.
J. H. HUDSON, Circuit Judge.
At Chambers, Yorkvlle s. c., April IL, 1875
There is but one verdict, and that is that
in thirty-three years Dr. Bulls Cough Syrup
has never failed to cure Cough, Cold or
General Hoarseness At Drug stores. Price
25 cents: five bottles, 81.