The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1883-04-21

power t. make such subscriptions or dona'
lions On the contrary, ii has been over
and over again held and as often us the
question was presented, that unless the
specific power was granted oil such SUP,
SC, lpuons, and all such donations, MS wen
as the corporate bonds ISSUED tor their
payment, were absolutely void even as
against bona tide holders of the bonds
Thompson V. Lee County, 3 wall, 33o;
Marsh v. Fulton County, 10 wall, Joy +;
Mcclure V. Township OF Oxford, 94 l; D.
1872; Wells V. Supervisors, 1O2 |. s., O3o;
| Allen v. Louisiana, 1O3 L. =, SG.
| In the present case there Is nothing
whatever TO indicate any special authority
IN this city to pay bonus tor The work
that was to be Gone. 1t did have power to
provide the city with water, but there ls
nowhere anything looking to such pur-
pose IN this transaction. The object here
was 10 bring the water into use As power
To be leased or sold n reasonable rate, An
attempt was made by the Legislature to au-
IthoriZc subscription To the stock oil the
manufacturing company, bur that was OF
no avail because IN the form adopted the
Legislation was comics Scdly unconslitutlon'
al. The charter therefore, stands The same
as though no such attempt had been maze,
and what was done did not create corpo
rate purpose to effect an improvement OF
the pOwer But even II there mad hecn
power TO sui sCribe TO The stock, II would
| not follow there was power 10 make 90
nation by way of bonus to the company
to aid IN the improvement. In Chicago,
| Danvilc and VIncennes i. *. co. "
| SIN it'll, supra, II was indeed sald that Tue
! distinction between q donation 10 alu u
company and "a subscription to lis STOCK
was more apparent than real but that
was SAID in reference to the question OF
making subscriptions and donations for cor
porate purposes, and not with reference 10
the effect of power TO subscribe as con =
ferring a power to donate. In no case to
which our attention has been called has ii
| been held that power TO subscribe stock
would of itself authorize donation.
The case OF Hickling v. Wilson, decided
by the Supreme Court of Illinois in June
OF last year, and reported in 104 H., "a, IS
relied upon IN support of this judgment
That was suit by creditor OF the manu-.
featuring company against the stockhold'
ers to collect his debt. The city was not
party, and its liability was in no way In
volved. In the opinion, as published IN
the official report of the case, 1t was not
even assumed that there was corporate
power TO issue the bonds.
The present case was submitted at the
last term, and at former day in this term
decision was announced reversing the
| Judgment, but in the opinion reasons were
a ssigned for the reversal different from
tn Sc now given. That judgment was af
forwards, upon application for rehear
| ing, set aside and reargument ordered.
| Upon further consideration of the whole
case, we prefer to rest the decision on the
ground that as between Cushman and the
city the bonds in question were Illegal and
void, and as the present holder occupies
no better position than Cushman, he and
all those under whom he claims having
bought with full knowledge of all the
facts, The Judgment should have been in IA
vor OF the city,
The Judgment Of the circuit court is
consequently again reversed and the cause
demanded, with instructions to enter an.
other judgment in favor of the city on the
facts found.