Herald and tribune. [volume] (Jonesborough, Tenn.) 1869-current, 1895-03-20
JOHNSON CITY WINS
In Her Fight Against the 3.C's Rail.
r0nd..The OpiniOn.


last week by Judge Smith, The fol-
lowing is the opinion i'll the matter:
Mayor and Aldermen, of johnson City,
VS.. Charleston, Cincinnati and
Chicago Railroad Com
pany and others.
This case, in argument, was narrowed
down to three propositions upon which
c%omplainants rely to sustain their case.
/. 1t is insisted that chap. 8, Acts of
1887, under which application was
made and bonds issued, in so far as the
same authorizes the issuance of bonds
in payment for a stock subscription
voted a railroad company by a munich
pal corporation, without providing for
an election upon the question of issu
ing bonds, violates sec. 80. art. 2 of the
Constitution.
2. That the $75, 900 voted to the de-
PENDANT railroad company, exceeded in
the aggregate lone tenth of the taxa
BILE property" of Johnson City at the
time of said election, as was then as.
certained by assessments in the manner
provided by law, said aggregate of tax
able property being by law a public
record, and that the Mayor and Alder
men are not estopped by recitals on the
bonds as against an innocent holder.
8. That the proposition of December
Charleston, Cincinnati and Chicago
Railroad Company, as incorporated un.
der the general laws of Tennessee by it's
President or other officers or person
authorized thereto, but was in fact
made by the Charleston, Cincinnati
and Chicago Railroad Company, char.
tered under the laws of North and South
Carolina, and was in lieu of a former
proposition by said last company, and
which had entered into an agreement
of consolidation with the Tennessee
corporation, but which agre ement was
not perfected and effected in Tennessee
until May 10, 1890 after the proposition
was submitted and the vote taken and
bonds issued.
After an examination of the record
and the authorities cited in the briefs ]
am of opinion
/. That the provisions of chap. 8,
Acts of 1887 authorizing the issuance oil
bonds in payment for a stock subscrip'
ton voted to a railroad company by an
incorporated town is not a violation OF
the Constitution.
III. That inasmuch as the mode OF
the ascertainmept of the value of the
taxable property in incorporated towns
is taken out of the hands of the munich
pal authorities and entrusted to an off
Ger appointed thereto under the general
law, and the assessment made by him
after equalization alike binding upon
the taxpayer and the municipal author
tiles, that the meaning of the limitation
in the Act of 1887, to one tenth of the
aggregate of taxable property, is to the
then existing assessment, and that the
Mayor and Aldermen having no author
ity under the Act of 1887 or general
law to ascertain or assess the value OF
property for taxation, and the assess
ment then in force being a public rec.
ord, that they are not estopped by any
r~ecitals in the bonds as against an in
nocent holder, he being bound to take
notice of the public records.
This being a limitation of authority
is to be strictly construed. The railroad
company so interpreted the law at the
time, and tried to evade il by applying
under chap. So. Acts of 1887, authoriz
ing johnson City to issue $4,000 in
bonds, said act being conceded to bt
void.
III. That the proposition of Deem
Der 30, 1889 was not the application Of
the Charleston, Cincinnati and Chicago
Railroad as incorporated under the gen
eral lawso Tennessee, by Wilder, Carr
Cargille, Cure and others.
/. No one was ever appointed OF
authorized by the incorporation to ap
ply for such aid.
The charter states its purpose to be II
aid of and a supplement to the South
and North Carolina corporation. There
was an attempt to consolidate, and the
Tennessee corporation as such, ceased
to attempt ever to exercise any func
ton.
This consolidation was not perfected
until May 10, 1890, when the agreement
was filed with the Secretary of State
Until then the consolidated company
had no rights, as such, in Tennessee
The proposition was submitted, vot,
taken and bonds issued previous t.
May 10, 1890.
2. The proposition was prepared b,
Carr, without any authority from tn
Tennessee incorporators, and given tt
johnson, General Manager of the Nortl
and South Carolina corporation, VIII
changed it to suit himself. 1t was thei
signed by him under seal of the foreign
corporation, stated to be in lieu of tn,
proposition previously made by the for
eign corporation with the termini o
the foreign corporation inserted as tina
of the road applying for aid. The stool
issued was that of the road as attempte,
to be consolidated and the bonds issue,
on Johnson s order. There is NO pre-
tense that any n was eve authorizes
by vote, motion, or resolution of tn
Tennessee corporation to apply TO
such aid.
The proposition was not that of tn
President or an authorized agent o
officer" of said Tennessee Charleston
Cincinnati and Chicaoo Railroad Con