The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1885-02-18
SUPREME COURT CASES.
Reported for The claron, by H. r. Parker
Attorney Jackson Mss
October TerIn-TeSx.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHICKA-
saw COUNTY

COUNTY.
From the Chancerv Court of CLAW coun
ty. F. A. Crilz. Chancellor
Liability Of nelc county as to deJt q
coanfy from uhich tt lras ereated.
Cooper, J.:
The facts in this case are about A.
follows: Prior to the adoption Of til
Constitute n Of 1869. il vas submitted
To the voters of Chickasaw county
under an act Of the Legislature. whether
they should subscribe 300, 900 10 tie
Grenada, Houston & Eastern Railroad
Company TIE Board Of Supervisors
declared that the subscription bad hee
adopted bv majority. This wa. li
October. 1869. On December 81. 1869
after the adoption of the Constitution
subscription was made of 500. 900
PAYABLE in ten years. A tax was levied
for the purpose of this subscription IN
1870 and 1871. In 1871. under an ac3
authorizing ali the counties which had
subscribed to this railroad to bond their
railroad debt, the Board of Supervisors
issued bonds in payment of tire sub
scription of Chickasaw county,
In 1871, the Legislature passed an act
(now Claw county. The new county
was not, however, organized under this
act. In 1872 another act for the same
purpose was passed; and under this act
Colfax county was organized in NAV
1872 Both of these acts provided that
the new county should pay its proper
ton of the debts of the respective coun
ties from which it was to be excised
The bonds not being paid at maturity
the holders of some of them instituted
suits against Chickasaw county, and
obtained judgments. These judgments.
and some of the bonds on which suit
had not been instituted, were paid bv
Chickasaw county; and the Board 81
Supervisors of that county then eXhib-
tied their bill against Clay county, to
compel the latter to pay its proportion
of he debt. An appeal was taken To
this court from a decree sustaining
demurrers TO the bill; and this court
overruled the demurrers and remanded
the case. Clay county now replies with
four pleas, all of which were held good
by the chancellor, upon which we say
The pleas, upon various grounds.
challenge the validity Of the bonds
and subscription, and seek the conclu
sion that therefore Clay county is not
liable to Chiekasaw county for the
money paid in discharge of the sup
posed obligations. The theory of the
defendant county is that from the date
of its organization, the officers of Chick
asaw county were strangers to it, and
powerless to bind it in any way, that il
is chargeable only with its proportion
. no Il II Of
and that this was not legal debt. Ad-
hitting the correctness OF these two lat
ter propositions, they nevertheless con
stitute no sufficient defence, unless the
first is also true, and we are satisfied it is
not.
Creditors of the old counties were not
by the act creating ColfaX county, given
remedy against that county. They
C lutinued, as before, creditors of the old
counties, and their sole right was t.
recover from them.
The effect of the allowance of claim
by the board of supervisors of a county
is not so broad as that which results
from the rendition OF Judgment in =
suit against the county. The judgnert
is final and conclusive against the board.
and, in the absence of fraud and collu
sion, is conclusive against the taXpay
ers, upon the ground that they are real
though not nominal defendants therein. /
For this reason, tie citizens of ChIcka
saw county were bound by the judy
ments, as also for the reason tn they
would have been discharged frail iabii- /
ity if the judgment had been in favor
of the defendants. In such case, Col /
fax county would also have been dis
charged from liability; and therefore il |
may be said that it was real party in
interest And if this release would have
arisen not collaterally and incidentally, |
but directly, and because of the fact
that the defendants stood in a represen
tstive capacity to it, it follows that it
bound by the judgments against such
representatives.
Was it also party by representation
We must assume that at the time of the
passage of the act creating Colfax coun-
ty, the respective boards of supervisors
of the counties from which its territory
was taken had the usual powers of such
boards. In the exercise of their juris-
diction, the fact of the Indebtedness ot /
the county was necessarily determined, /
and there is nothing in the act creating
the new county to indicate that such /
determination should be less binding
upon the excised territory. ColfaX /
county took the excised territory cum
oRere, and whatever debts bound Chick /
asaw county were in due proportion /
binding upon it.
In the absence of an express legisla |
tive declaration, we cannot assume that /
in the apportionment of the debts, Chick (
asaw county should be required to estab
lish anew the validity of those debts I
which had been audited and allowed by /
It's constituted authorities, or for which .
Judgment had been rendered against it, /
Ample protection against fraudulent I
claims was afforded to the new county +
by the fact that Cnickasaw county could |
only demand from it proportienate
part of those debts for which its own |
liability had been leg lily liked by it, |
board of supervisors or by the judgment
of a court of competent jurisdiction, and
we are unable TO distinguish between
these two cases. If the board could
legally bind Colfax county as its reprp-