The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1898-06-01

On Friday last, Judge Buck rendered
his decision on the motion for an in
junction restraining the township board
from issuing the bonds recently voted by
Paw Paw township, denying the motion,
to the great elation of nearly, if not quite,
all the residents of this township. Fol
lowing is the full text of the
OPINION:
STATE OF MICHIGAN:-The Circuit
Court for The County Of Van Buren,.
In Ctancery.
THos F. DODGE,
Complainant
VS..
VIM. c. WILDEY ct al,
Defendants.
Complainant files his bill of com
plant in this court, praying for decree
that certain bonds voted by the electors
of Paw Paw township on the 18th day of
March, A. d. 1898, and subsequently is
sued by the township board of said town
ship, are wholly illegal and void; and
that the defendants be restrained by in
junction from selling or otherwise dis
posing of said bonds.
Complainant asserts in and by his
bill of complaint, that such bonds were
voted and issued in the interest of the
South Haven & Eastern Railroad com
pany and as a bonus to said company
for making certain changes and improve
ments in its road and railroad property.
That said bonds are therefore illegal and
void: and that Act No. 435 of the Local
Acts of Michigan for 1895, if it can be
so construed as TO authorize the issue of
said bonds, is unconstitutional and void.
Defendants, by their answers, claim
that said bonds were neither voted nor
issued in aid of the S. III. & +. r. r. Co.,
but were voted and issued in pursuance
of the provisions of the statute before
mentioned, for the purpose of paying for
laying out and constructing a highway
in said township. Defendants further
claim that said bonds have been already
negotiated and have passed out of the
control of the defendants and are no
longer subject to the jurisdiction of the
court
To these claims complainant by his
counsel, replies that the laying out and
opening of highway in said township
was mere preteXt for issuing said bonds,
and that the real object for which said
bonds were issued was as set forth in the
bill of complaint.
And thereupon complainant's counsel
argues with great force that if the as
sertions of defendants in relation to the
ha,
are true, defendants could not be harm
ed by the granting of temporary in
junction as prayed; while on the other
hand, if defendants claims should prove
to be untrue, complainant will suffer ir-
reparable injury by the denial of the in
junction. And the court is strongly of
the opinion that if the bonds which are
the subject of this controversy are in
valid, then the complainant is entitled
to the temporary injunction asked for
in this motion.
This view renders it necessary TO ex-
anime the question of the validity of the
bonds upon the assumption that they were
issued as bonus to the South Haven
and Eastern Railroad Co. in considera-
ton of the making of certain changes
and improvements in the road and rail
road property of the company.
Counsel for the railroad company ad-
mits that if they were issued for this
purpose they are invalid; but the judg-
ment of the court is not to be governed
by concessions of counsel.
There can be no question but that,
according to the decisions of the supreme
court of Michigan, in the cases of the
People VS. Salem, 20 Mich 452, and Bay
City VS.. State Treasurer, % Mich. 499,
municipal corporation of this state has
no authority to issue its bonds in aid of
private corporation building, or pro-
posing to build a railroad to be owned
and controlled by the corporators; and
that the legislature cannot under the
constitution, authorize the issue of such
bonds, either with or without vote of
the electors of the municipal corporation
issuing them.
And the principle underlying these
decisions is reaffirmed in Thomas vs.
Port Huron, 81 Mich. 320, and recognized
in Curtenius VS.. G.. r. g. /. r. r. Co., 81
Mich. 5S3. The effect of the before
mentioned decisions is alluded to in
Cedar Springs VS.. Sclich, 81 Mich. 405,
but there is nothing in the latter case
that can be interpreted as reaffirming
the doctrine of the earlier cases.
And it is also unquestionably true that
the decisions first above referred to are
not only opposed to the almost uniform
decisions of the courts of last resort in
other states, but are also expressly dis
approved by the supreme court of the
United States.
In Pine Grove Township VS. Tallcott,
10 Wal 666, a case which involved the
validity of bonds issued by the township
of Pine Grove, in this county, in aid of
the X. & S. II. r.. r., Mr.. Justice Swayne,
speaking for the court, says of the first
two of the Michigan DECISIONS before
cited: ave have examined those cases