The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-08-19
BANK VS. OXFORD,
GOFF'S DECISION
The North Carolina Supreme
Court Affirmed.
HISTORY OF THE CASE
ACT AUTHORIZING THE BONDS
WAS INVALID.
HENCE THE COMPROMISE WAS VOID
The Court Says Il is Bound by Decision Of the
State Court as to the Proper Passage
of the Bill Authorizing Issue
cf TIE Bonds,


The text of the opinion of the Circui
Court of Appeals in the Oxford bone
case was received here yesterday.
As already stated in these columns, j
affirms the decision of the Supreme cour
of North Carolina, holding the bonds in
valid and incapable of ratification.
The court says it is bound by tn,
decision of the State court as to thu
proper passage of the bill and even If il
were not so bound it would come TO the
some conclusion.
1.-The Supreme court of North Carolina
has passed upon the identical questions
and facts involved in this controversy
it has construed both the Constitution OF
that State and the legislation of the
same relating to the bonds in suit, and
it has declared the absolute want of al-
thority in the board of commissioners
in the town of Oxford to issue said
bonds. Our views concur with the de.
cision of that court in the particulars
mentioned. but independent of that, the
construction by that court of the Con
stitutien and laws of that State, would
under the circumstances of his case, bt
followed by u.s.
Judge Golf, who writes the opinion OF
the court, discusses also the question OF
the alleged estoppel arising from the con
sent judgment and says it could not have
the effect of an estoppel because it was
consent judgment and the consent oil
the commissioners of the town of Ok
ford could not authorize the issue of the
bonds if there was want Of power
Moreover, in the original suit the validity
of the bonds, was not involved and tht
commissioners only agreed to issue SO
600, leaving the question of the validity
of the bonds to be gone into hereafter.
ssIhe town had no legal right to do
nate the bonds to the railroad compan.
nor had it the power to issue them il
order to secure the compromise, unless
such power was expressly granted by leg
islative enactment; and that such was
the understanding at the time between
the parties ito the controversy as shows
by the reference, both in the judgmen
and ON the face of the bonds, to the ac1
of the Assembly under which. the au
thority to issue them was claimed. The
railroad company insisted THAT the towf
should issue to it bonds to the amount
of $4,000, by virtue of the action taker
under the legislation referred to, and the
town, while not admitting its liabilit.
to that amount. offered to adjust the con
troversy by issuing, under said enact
ment, bonds of the character therein de
scribed to the amount of $4,000. Tha.
offer was accepted by the railroad com
pany, and the compromise agreemen
was signed, the consent Judgment enter
ed and the bonds issued. The validft.
of the legislation involved was not il
issue, and that legislation was invalie
when the compromise was entered into
the, rendition of the judgment baset
thereon did not make it valid. Ii tn
town had not the power to issue th'
bonds, the consent of its board of com
missioners to the compromise agreement
would not cure that defect.
"The board of commissioners of thu
town of Oxford cannot, by its action, by
its agreement or the payment of interes
ON the bonds, estop that municipallt.
from ascertainiing the legal existence
or constitutionality of an act of thu
General Assembly of North Carolin;
under which it is claimed fhat its in
habitans are liable to taxation"
AS to the questions relating to tn,
validity of legislation such as that undo.
which the bonds i'm controversy wert
issued, Judge Golf says the court full,
considered and disposed of them in tn
Stanly bond case decision.
s'THvMI aEa
This case has attracted much atten
tion and the opinion of the court is o
interest. The object of the suit was t.
recover the amount claimed by the plain
tiff aJuion Bank of Richmond) to b'
due from the defendant town of Ok
for,I) for interest ON certain bonds II
the possession of the bank and to com
pel the town to levy taxes and pay thu
sum claimed.
The bonds were duly voted and orderet
issued in 1891, under the proposition t
subscribe $4,000 to aid in the building
Of the Oxford and Coast Line Railroad
The mayor, however, refused to sign Tn
ordinance directing the subscription an
in his refusal he was upheld by tn
county commissioners. Thereupon tn
railroad instituted suit for a mandarin
compelling the issue of the bonds.
Pending the hearing of the case
compromise was effected whereby tn
town was to issue $4,000 This agree
ment was reached in July, 1892. %
August /, 1892, the bonds were issued
On September 18th the Union Bank Q
Richmond purchased sixteen OF tn
bonds lin denomination of $1,000 each
paying for them 1915 each.
The road for which the bonds were Is
sued has never been completed, and i
1893 payment Of the coupons was re
fused. Suit was at once instituted D.
the plaintiff bank in Granville Superio
court and was twice before the Suprem
court of the State. Such suits were
petition for mandamus to compel th
commissioners of the town of Oxford t
levy taxes to pay the interest due O
the bonds.
The Supreme court held that the &C
relating to these bonds was invalid
cause it had not been passed in con
pliance with the requirements of til
Constitution of North Carolina, concern