Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-08-20
ABScaU7rEx pURE
ao~.. sAsrn sqspsn CO.. sew yoax:


and this cause is remanded with direc-
tons to dissolve the injunction, discharge
| the receiver. and dismiss the BILL
Town of Oxford VS.. Union Bank.
| The decision in the case of the Board OF
| Commissioners Of oxford, y. C.; J. {.
| Biggs Mayor ct ais, plaintiffs in error,
VS.. Union Bank Of Richmond. Va, de-
| PENDANT In error. is based upon the same
| grounds as that in the Stanly county case
| This cause came up on an appeal from
| the Circuit Court of the United States for
| the Eastern District Of North Carolina, at
! Raleigh. This action was originally
| brought by the Union Bank OF Richmond
| against the Commissioners OF oxford 10
| recover the amount claimed by the PLAIN
| tiff to be due from the defendant Tor In
| terest on certain bonds, as shown by
| coupons then in the possession OF the
| plaintiff, and also TO compel the oefend-
| ant. by mandamus. TO levy taxes and pay
| the plaintiff the sum due IT.
The General Assembly Of North Caro-
lima. in 1891, chartered the oxford and
| Coast-Line Railroad Company, and the
| next year the town Of oxford voted
| subscription of $4,000 to aid in the con-
| struction Of the road, and bonds TO that
| amount were ordered TO be Issued. In
| February, 1892, a contract was made
| with James r.. Pruden TO build the road
| from Dickerson's Station, on the Durham
| and Northern, TO the town of oxford,
| but in May the Board of Commissioners,
| with the approval OF the Mayor. declined
| to issue the bonds. In July the railroad
company and Pruden united in institutlns
mandamus proceedings in the Superior
Court Of Granville county to compel the
board to issue the bonds. Pending the
controversy an agreement of compromise
was entered into under which the town
was to issue $4,000 of bonds, which should
purport on their face TO be issued under
and in pursuance of said chapter 3l5,
laws of 1891, and chapter 81 OF the pri-
vate laws Of 1885. and the election held
April a. 1891, as also under the said
agreement of compromise, which was 10
be entered I'm said suit as the judgment
Of the Superior Court Of Granville county,
with the assent Of all the parties there
TO. The bonds were issued August /, 1892,
each for $1,000.
DID NOT PAY INTEREST.
The plaintiff below Union Bank). on
the 18th day Of September 1892. purchased
| In good faith, in the usual course of bust
ness, sixteen Of said bonds. paying for
| each the sum Of 1915, the plaintiff having
no other notice than such as the law inn
| plies. and as is contained on their face
! concerning such bonds. The coupons ma
turing May 1. 1893 were paid by defend
ant below. when the same were present
ed. The other coupons, showing the in
terest due on the bonds held by the plain
tiff when this suit was Instituted,
amounting TO $500 were duly presented
at maturity for payment, and payment
was refused. The oxford and Coast-Line
1 l.. raF
The plaintiff below. before 1t instituted
this suit. had sued the defendants below
in the Superior Court of Granville coun-
Is. and that case was twice before the
Supreme Court Of that State, being re-
ported as Union Bank VS.. Commissioners
OF oxford. ZIG y. C.. $685. and lls n. G, IA.
Such suit was a petition for mandamus
10 compel the commissioners Of the town
of oxford TO levy taxes 10 pay the inter-
+ est due on sgid bonds.
During the second trial In the Superior
Court il was shown that, on the passage
Of said act in the House Of Representa-
tives. IT passed its second and third read
ines on the same day. and that the yeas
and nays were not entered on the journal
on either Of said readings. The Superior
Court held that, nevertheless, the BOMBS
were valid and u verdict was directed
for the amount claimed was rendered.
The defendant appealed and the Supreme
Court reversed said judgment, holding
that the bonds were absolutely void and
Incapable OF ratification. When the GER
tifcate and opinion Of the Supreme Court
reached the court below Omitted States
Circnit Court the plaintiff voluntarily
submitted to a non-suit. and then insh-
tuted the suit now considered. declaring
on the same coupons sued on in the State
Court. and also on others, that had be-
come due after the beginning of the first
suit The case was regularly brought on
for a hearing when the court below en-
tereda judgment i'm favor OF the plain
tiff for 81 329. the fun amount due on the
interest coupons that had matured when
this action was instituted; and also di-
rectcd that writ of mandamus issue 10
the defendants, commanding them 10 levy
sufficient taxes TO pay said judgment and
the cost Of this litigation. Thereupon the
said defendants applied for and We're
awarded the writ of error now disposed
of.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
The Circuit Court Of Appeals reafIirms
its decision in the Stanly county case.
discusses the points involved at some
length, and says:
The Supreme Court OF North Carolina
has passed upon the identical questions
and facts involved in this controversy;
il has construed both the Constitution
Of that state and the legislation of the
same relating 10 the bonds in suit. and
il has decreed the absolute want of au-
thority I'm the Board of Commissioners
of the town of oxford TO issue said bonds.
Our views concur with the decision Of
that court in the particulars mentioned
but Independent of that. the construc-
lion by that court of the Constitution
and laws of that State would, under the
circumstances of this case, be followed
byus
The defendant In error insists that the
judgment. by consent, entered in the suit
instituted by the railroad company in
the Superior Court of Granville county
against the plaintiff In error, binds the
latter TO a compliance with the terms
thereof. and renders valid the bonds is
sued Hereunder. This claim is without
merit, and is, we think, the result of a
msconception of the effect of the COM
promise that was effectuated by the judg-
ment referred to. The town had no
legal right TO donate the bonds TO he
railroad company, nor had IL the power
TO issue them in order TO secure the com
promise, unless such power was expressly
granted by legislative enactment
and that such was the understanding at
the time between the parties to the con-
troversy is shown by the reference both
in the judgment and on the face of the
bonds, TO the act Of the assembly under
which the authority 10 issue them was
claimed. The railroad company insisted
that the town should Issue 10 ii bonds TO
the amount OF $1,000 by virtue of the
action taken under the legislation referred
10. and the town, while not admitting its