The Leavenworth weekly times. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan.) 1870-1880, 1878-05-16
IMPORTANT KANSAS DECISION.
Reg tstersd township Bonds Deeiar.


hAN>A> nHC'sioN'
meg hSo""s nee'a5'
r" 'an".
supreme court OIL Inc United states, DC
tober term, io..-
Inc township OIL hock Ereek' IN The
couh's oi 'ehersoh, ''ate vi hahsas, plain
I'M IN error, VS.. Henry Strong.
In error TO the Slrcult Court oil the Uni
Tea states Tor the DistIiGt oil hansas-
MT Justice Strong delivered the opinion
oil me Court:
The act oi the Kansas Legislature, APP
proves Maieh = 49, expressly authorized
the Issue OF township bonds TO AID IN the
construction o. RAILROADS. or water power by
donation thereto, or ti'e taxing oI STOCK
therein, or Tor Other WORKS oil internal I'M
provement Like All expressions OF iegis-
lative Will, TINS provision OF Inc act must
receive a reasonable construction, ana mat
ineiuoed IN 'he gram oi power 70 aiu IN 'he
construction OF railroads or other works oil
internal Improvements Is authority TO as
sist In Inc construction Oh depots ana size
tracks oil railroad, we can not DOUBT
such constructions are cons'itueh's-ess
iial parts oil every raiiroad, without wi''cn
1t would be Incomplete anu ihcapaoie Oh
serving the uses Tor which IL Is intehde',
The cost oi ouiidihS them Is Always anu
properly, charged 10 CONSTRUCTION account,
ana mol 10 repairs VI eNPen Va cpe' a.'on
and mortgage oil raiiroau, WITHOUT
further description thah sucn as Is lieceS
sary to identity H. covers It's S'ov 'r'chs a""
depots.
we 90 mol see any ioice III VIC 1is"iien'
pressed upon Us os me pi'iii.n III ei'oii
that because IL was 'he "uis OF me rIi'r'aI
company TO furnish suitable sue 'racNs anu
depots, The act OF Ioi- can mol pe cohS'rued
as au,ncrizing me Issue Oh township bonus
70 ai1 IN oui,uins suen WI
equaiiy 'ne uuy VI 'he 'on pan! Su'
the man nue. anu ~ y i'I' i"e:t'GeI ~.
to~hShiP "as eniPoMeieu W Iiu AZ uo.iI3
the WORK. NOT Is 'iieie any 'iiii's III tne
provlso 10 'he ac1 mat tehus /" the as' ue
gree 10 Inc conclusion tua' the Lsieia'uIe
did not mean 10 authorize aid 10 'he ouiiu-
Ing OF depo'S.
The hrst question cerliued 10 US was
therefore correctly answered py the circult
Court In the Affirmative, ana 'he hr'' as
signment oil error Is o'efruied;
lhe second question cefuned Is, are .h1
bonds mentioned In the piaintih Pe'iuon
void for the reason tnat they are made pay
able thirty years ana thir'y-h'e Gays from
their date OF execution therein written, put
only drawing interest Tor the last thirty
wears OF said time
The second section oil the act authorizing
their issue enacted that the bonds should De
payable In not - man hve nor more man
thirty years from The date thereof, with ln-
terest not to exceed ten per cent per annum,
all in the discretion OF the officers Issuing
the same these provisions were obviously
directory, and not OF the essence OF the
power. The bonds issued We're dated Sep
TENDER 10, 49,, made payable thirty years
from the 10Th OF October, 1872, with inter
est thereon from the time at the rate oil
per cent. When they were delivered TO the
Railroad Company does not appear, though
| they were not registered by the Auditor OF
the State until October II, 1872. They
were thus practically thirty-year bonds,
bearing less rate OF interest than the rate
authorized. Their legal effect Is precisely
| what il would have been had the date IN
serted been October ID inst, ad oil September
| 10, 1872 Substantially, therefore, the leg
islative direction was followed. (See Com
missioners of Marion County VS.. Clark, "a
U. ). Sup. Court, 2.S.) The doctrine oil
| that case is applicable TO the present
The third assignment OF error Is that the
court erred in not holding the township
was not estOpped by the recitais IN the
bonds from introducing the testimony
offered. The bonds were issued by the
| township clerk. These were the olhcers
| designated by the statute TO execute such
bonds. The recitals were that the bonds
were made and Issued IN pursuance OF the
provisions OF the act oil the LEGISLATURE OF
March ,, 1872. But whether the recitais
were an estoppel against showing "hat ,he
defendant proposed to show, or whether
they were not, Is quite immaterial In this
case. The proof offered was that IN The
records vi the County commissioners
OF the county oil which Rock
Creek township Il part, ap-
peared the board lad canVassed The vote at
the election held to determine whether
the township should issue inc pohdS, ana
had determined the result 10 he, Tor the Is
sue tiity-two votes against Inc Issue MY
one votes, making lo5 VOTES In All cast, Dht
that m fact no canvas was made, and mat
only 1e2 votes were cast, hity-one oil which
only were in favor, OF IsSulng the bonds,
and that one person VINO voted In favor was
not a qualified eiector;
Now II the town .lerk ana treasurer
were not the persons authorized by law 10
determine the result OF the election, Inc
Board oil .ouht' Commissioners rH "ertn anu
their action, according to all our rulings:
was conclusive. A bona hde purchaser Oh
bond was under no obligation 10 look De
yond 1t. 1T was mol ms DUTY
to canvas the So'e, mIeh iesS
to ascertain whether those VINO '1'eu
were qualified electors. Inc law
cast the duty upon the board ana III such
case the action OF the Board must DC
found IN their records. II II @ adliii ut:
the purchaser OF the BOMBS was under obi,
cation TO inquire whether an election mad
been held, and what ITS result was, the only
place to which he could resort Tor the inior-
nation sought was therecords oil the board'
and had he sought there ne wouid nave
found that the townshipcierk and treasurer
could rightfuily issue the bonds. IL l9i-
lows that the evidence offered Dy tne oe-
PENDANT was quite immateriai or IL not,
that it was destructive 10 his defense
that no registration OF the bonds exists, or
ever has been In the once OF the AuuiIor Oh
me eta'e, .nousI m ar -, The honJs