Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1882-05-06

of towns, societlesand districts as parties.
As early III the history of our jnris-
prudence as 1905, a statute was enacted
authorizing committees, such as towns,
societies, ETC.. to prosecute and defend
suits, and tor this purpose to appear
either by themselves, agents or attOr-
neys. Ii the inhabitants were not then
considered as parties Individually, liable
to the consequences of Judgments
against such committees as parties,
there would have beer q glsrlng impro.
priety in permitting them to appear and
defend; but if parties. such a right was
necessary aud Indispensable"
Take the converse of the proposition
thus announced by the supreme our OF
Connecticut and apply it here If it
would be q "glaring impropriety"- to
permit a citizen of a county to appear
and defend where he was not q party,
and could not he bound by the judg-
ment, would not the s~.impropriety" be
still more ..glaring !" would it not
amount to the grossest injustice to refuse
him opportunity. to appear and defend
and still hold him bound by the judg-
ment? If it would not, then 1 confess
my utter inability to. understand either
the force and effect Of the English Ian
guage. or to draw the simplest inference
from the plaiuest premise.
The case of Clark vs.. Wolf 20 Iowa
1877, is relied on by the majority to sup
port their position. that a judgment
against q county binds and concludes
every citizen thereof. That case If it
goes SO far, is the only one tina does.
and has not a single authority TO sup
port 1t; is contrary as already seen, to
the text books, and to the cases I have
| cited, and has no sound reason upon
which 1t can rest. But that case does
not, as l read it, announce in all It's
broadness, the position taken by nay as
soclates. The facts OF that case are Pc
culiar and entirely different, as / con-
ceive, from this one. There one Berry
hill Tor himself, and other citizens and
taxpayers had brought suit against the
county to enJoin the collection of GER
tain railroad taxes; he was successful,
and the Injunction was by the state
court made perpetual. Afterwards the
county was sued in the circuit court Of
the United States for the district OF
Iowa, and pleaded the injunction grant.
| ed by the state court in favor of Berry,
hill and others /; but The federal court
held the answer insufficient, the injunc-
ton void, and awarded u peremptory
mandamus Tor the collection OF the tax.
And the supreme court of Iowa place
special stress upon the fact that Clark,
being a citizen of the county. and the
Injunction suit of BerryhiI and othe, q
being brought ''tor himself aud others,
citizeus OF the county. and the question
mao nna ~ nopnrnnn ikoraot oil to
citizens are treated and accepted in
theory as parties. and standing as Berry
hill does"
Aud that court places special and ad.
duional stress upon the further fact,
italicizing the words:
That in the federal court. when the
county was sued. s''The injunction pro-
ceedings were pleaded and held not to
be a bar" How different the case be-
fore US! Clark, when Berryhill sued to
eDjoin the county, could, as one of the
citizens thereof, have been made = co.
plaintiff, and when the county was sued
in the federal court. could have very
properly INTERVIEWED and been made a
party defendant, thus bringing that case
within the rule, I relying upon the au-
thoritles quoted have heretofore an
nounced. These remarks are sufficient
to dispose of the case OF Clark vs.. Wolf,
aud the ruling OF the majority Of this
court based thereon. II that case goes
further than the view I nave taken OF it,
1t does SO in flat disregard of all prece.
dent, all principle, all authority and in
the very teeth OF the plainest dictates of
natural justice, which forbid q man
from beng deprived of any right, until
opportunity be first given hun to be
heard IN his defense.
II
II the above views be correct, then it
must needs follow that the Judgment
against Green county does not bind
Rainey. Consequently, the alleged
debt sued on in the federal court. is not
as to him Emerged in the judgment"
He is a stranger thereto and may urge
all such objections rs any other strang-
or might urge, either against the validi-
ty Of the debt or the validity OF the
judgment. sL.
This court in state ex rel Wilson VS.,
G~arroutte, 81 Mo-, AS, held the bonds
in that case, being vi the same class as
those now in the controversy, we're
absolutely void. A like result was
reached by this court in respect to sim.
liar bonds in state ex rel Barlow VS..
The Dallas County Court, u Mo-, 329.
To that ruling q majority OF this court
still adhere. But it Is said we must ntt
"lnteriere with the power of the ieder
al courts" l grant it. think, howev.
er. it will be time enough to discuss that
point when such interference is asked,
AT this time we are not called upon to
interfere with federal process; the de.
PENDANT by this appeal simply calls up-
on US to say whether we will by our
state officers and state courts assiduous-
ly assist q federal court in collecting
from him a tax for the payment OF bonds
which on our OAlhs we have twice said are
unconstitutional and void. The sepr, me
court I'll Iowa in the case OF Clark vs..
Wolf, supra, and ca parte Holman, 29
Iowa, 81, have said that they would not
Interfere with and thwart the process of
the federal courts, and so say i,
But interference with the federal
courts is one thing. and actively aiding
them Is another and very different thing.
In this respect | concur with Dillon, c.
j., in the case last cited, where he,
speaking for the court, says: "Bscause
the national supreme court decides tina,
the ~bOndholders may enforce their bonds
in the courts of the United States. this
court ls not bound to follow that decis-
ION and hold that they may recover
thereon in the state courts" But nv
brethren with compliant complaisance
open wide the doors oil our state courts
and bid our county collectors entel
those courts, sue Jul citizens for the col
lection OF unconstitutional and void tax,
es and assure these tax gatherers that
when they recover judgments, those
judgments shall be in ali things affirmed
Others may say this, l tor one neve,
shall. Having said. as the organ o
this court on two occasions, that sucI
and similar bonds were void, l cannot
: consistently with my ideas of duty, as
. sists in their collection. l will, a.
, ought, refrain form interfering with th,
. jurisdiction or process of the fedora
3 courts. but when they render iudgmeu
on bonds which wi laws and our con
1 stitution as e%xpounded by US, pronounc,
9 void, I will not so lar stultify mysel
: and the record l have made; l will no
50 far bow the knee to federal nsnrna