The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-04-13
THE WILKES BOND CASE
THE COURT SAYS IT IS BOUND by THE
DECISION OF THE STATE COURT.
The Full Text of The Decision Rendered by
Justice Peckham. II May Not Settle
The Question at Is ue.

I
Peckham 1t is rs follows:
This action was commenced in the
Superior court Of Wilkes county, in the
State of North Carolina, 10y the board
of commissioners of Wilkes county and
C. c. Wright, against Clarence Cali
Mr. Wright was taxpayer of the coun-
ity. while the defendant Call, was its
treasurer. The action was brought to
test the validity of certain bonds is
sued by The county of Wilkes in pay
ment of its subscription to the stock of
the Northwestern North Carolina Rall-
road Company,
| The d PENDANTS Turner and Well
born were the owners of some of the
bonds, and after the bringing of this
action they We're, ON their own motion,
| brought III as parties defendant, anu
they invited all other bondholders TO
come in and join them in resisting the
action.
1T was claimed by the holders of the
bonds that authority for their issue eX-
| listed under an ordinance chartering the
| Northwestern North Carolina Railroad
IConpany, which ordinance was adopted
by the constitutional convention of
North Carolina. March s, 1868, the con-
stitution being itself ratified April -,
1868. il was also insisted that the
bonds were authorized under sections
1886 to 1000 of the Code of North Car
DINA, as enacted in 1869, and suisse
quently ratified i'll 1855; also, that the
charter of The railroad company, as
amended in 1879. and again in 1881, au-
thorized the issuing of the bonds The
bonds were in fact issued in 1890, and
| therefore subsequent TO all the legisla,
ton above referred to. The bonds re-
cited on their face that they We're is
sued under the act of 1870.
''As grounds for their contention that
the bonds were invalid. the plaintiffs
below asserted that neither the above
mentioned act of 1879 nor the amend
ed act of 1881 had been constitutionally
passed. that the bonds were not is
sued under the ordinance adopted by
the constitutional convention. and that
by the GDctrims OF estoppel the bond
holders could not claim that the bonds
were issued under such ordinance or
by virtue of any other authority than
that recited on their face. viz: the act
of 1879
THE Supreme, court of the State held
that the bonds We're void because the
acts under which they were issued were
not valid laws, not having been pass d
in the manner directed by the constitu-
ton. The court further held that the
bonds were not authorized by the above
sections of the Code. and that as they
purported. by reeitals on their face, to
have been issued under the act of 1870,
the bondholdei's We're estepped from set
ting up any other authority for their
tissue, such as the ordinance of the con-
stitutiona convention above mentioned.
81 S. L. 4S1.
'1ne bondholdsrs have brought the
case here. claiming that by he decision
below their contract has been impaired,
because, as they allege, the Supreme
court of the State had decided before
these bonds We're issued that the acts
under which they were issued were valid
laws and authorized their Issue. and slat
in holding the contrary after the issue
|of these bonds the State court has inn
paired the obligation of the contract.
and its decision raised a federal question
proper for review by this court.
But in this oasa we have no power
TO examine the correctness of the decis-
lima, because, this being a writ of error
to State court, we cannot take juris-
diCtion Under the allegation That IA con-
tract has been impaired by a decision
|of that court, when it appears that the
state court has done nothing more than
construe its own constitution and
statutes existing at the time when the
bonds were issued; there being no sub
seguent legislation touching the subject.
We are therefore bound by the decision
of the State court in regard to The
meaning of the constitution and laws
of its own State, and its decision upon
such a state Of facts raises no federal
question. either principles obtain when
the writ Of error is to federal court.
.FThe difference in the jurisdiction of
| this court upon writs of error to Il
State. as distinguished from a federal
court, il our stions claimed TO arise ont
| of the contract clause Of the constitu-
ltion, is set forth in the opinion Of the
| court iii Land Co. VS.. Laidley. 159 L. S.
lob, and from the opinion in that case
the following extract is taken page Ill,
159 e. 81:
The distinction. as to the authority
| OF this court, between writs of error to
| a court of the United States and writs
of error to the highest court of State.
| is well illustrated by two of the earliest
cases relating to municipal bonds, in
lboth of which the opinion was delivered
| by Mr. Justice Swayne, and in each
of which the question presented was
lwhether the constitution of the State of
Iowa permitted the legislature to author
/ ize municipal corporations to issue bonds
| i'll aid of the construction of n railroad.
| The Supreme court of the State, by de-
cisions made before the bonds i'm question
lcwsre issued. had held that it did, but, by
decisions made after they had Aibeen is
sued, held that it did not A Judgment
of the district court of the United
| states for the district of Iowa. follow
ling the later decisions of the State court.
was reviewed on the merits and re-
versed, by this court. for demonstration
of the constitution of Iowa. Gelpcke vs..
| City of Dubuque, Wall. 175, 206. But
| writ of error to review one OF those
decisions of the Supreme court of Iowa
was dismissed for want of jurisdiction,
because. admitting the constitution of
| the State to DE law of the State, with
| in the meaning of the provision of the
constitution of the United States forbid
ding State to pass any law impairing
4 do. NJ f,.aft md Z lfC