The comet. (Johnson City, Tenn.) 1884-1916, 1895-03-21
TIE DONp CASE.
Fail Text of Judge Smiths Decision In
the Bond suit.

ChArlt SIM, CINCINNATI " Chicago
Railroad Company.
This case, in argument. WAS narrow
ed down TO the proposition upon which
complainants rely to sustain their
case.
(D. It is insisted that chapter 8,
Acts of 1887, under which application
was made and bonds issued, in so far
ss the same authorizes the issuance OF
bonds in payment for stock subscrip
ton voted railroad company by
municipal corporation without pro
yiding for an election upon the quer-
ton of issuing bonds, violates section
30, article 2 Of the constitution.
(2). That the $4,000 voted to the
defendant railroad company exceeded,
in the aggregate, "one.tenth of the
taxable property" of Johnson City at
the time of said election, as was then
ascertained by assessment in the man
ner provided by law, said aggregate Of
taxable property being by law public
record; and that the mayor and alder.
men are not estopped by recitals in
the bonds, as against an innocent
holder.
(3). That the proposition Of Decem.
Der 80, 1889, was not in fact made by
the Charleston, Cincinnati & Chicago
Railroad Company, as Incorporated
ucder the general laws of Tennessee
by it's president or other officers or
person authorized thereto; but was in
fact made by tile Charleston, Cincin-
natl & Chicago Railroad Company,
chartered under the laws of North and
South Carolina, and was in lieu of Il
former proposition by said last com
pany, and which had entered into an
agreement of consolidation with the
Tennessee corporations but which
agreement was not perfected and ef
fective in Tennessee until May Is
1890; after the proposition was sub
mitted, the vote taken and bonds is
sued.
After an examination OF the recorC
aud the authorities in the briefs, l an
of opinion:
!. /. That the provisions OF chapter 8
Acts of 1887, authorizing the issuance
of bonds in payment for a stock sub
scription voted to a railroad compan,
by an incorporated town is not vic
lation of the constitution.
II. That inasmuch as the mode o
, the ascertainment OF the value of tn
taxable property in incorporated town
is taken out OF the hands OF the mu
nicipal authorities and entrusted to al
officer appointed thereto under th
> general law, and the assessment mad
by him CATER equalization), aliR
binding upon the tax payer and mu
nicipal authorities, that the meanin
of the limitation in the Act of '87 t
, "one.tenth OF the aggregate Of taxabl
v property" is to the then existing al
sessment and that the mayor an
aldermen, having no authority unde
The Act of 1887, or general law, to al
certain or assess the value OF the proI
|. erty for taxation, and the assessment
] then in force being a public RECORD
D that they are not estopped by any re
, citals in the bonds, as against an il
!. nocent holder; he being bound to tax
d notice of the public records.
s This being limitation of authorit!
is to be strictly construed. The raj
r road company so interpreted the la
e at the time aud tried to erase it
!, applying under chapter IS, Acts 1888
! authorizing Johnson City to issu
8 $4,000 in bonds-said Act being COZ
Y coded to be void.
y III. That the proposition of D
: cember 80, 1889, was not the apple
\ ton of the Charleston, Cincinnati
Chicago Railroad as incorporated u
der the general laws OF Tennessee,
Wilder, Carr, CargilIe, Cure and other
Y Q). No one was ever appointed
'e authorized by the incorporators to a
'e ply for such aid. The charter stat
:, its purpose to be in aid OF and su
Al plement to the South and North Ca
~ DINA corporation. There was an .
u tempt to consolidate. and then Il
ID Tennessee corporation, as such, ceas
to attempt even to exercise any fur
d ton. This consolidation was not p,
o. fected until May Is, 1890, when t
agreement was filed with the secreta
: Of State. Until then the consolidat
X, company had no rights, as such,
Tennessee. The proposition was 81
I mitted, vote taken and bonds issu
IA. previous to May Is, 1890.
DIV 2. The proposition was prepared
ed Carr without any authority from I
nv Tennessee porators, and given
ON johnson, general manager OF
no North and South Carolina corporate
OF who changed it tosuit himself; it v