The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1908-05-21
Judge Belder Holds That Haynes
and Claussen Cannot Collect
For Getting Franchise
BONDS HELD NULL AND VOID
Court Declares That They Are Not a
Lien On Property of Company at
Present in Charge in Kenosha
Nor Any Other Company

| After fight lasting nearly eight
years Haynes and C1aussen, the Chi
cago railway promoters have lost in
their effort to collect the $4,000 al
| LEGGED to be due them for work done
in securing the first franchise for an
electric railway on the streets of Ke-
nosha. Judge Be1den handed down
a decision in the suit which the pro-
motors brought against B. ]. Arnold,
the Kenosha Electric Railway Com
pany, The Kenosha Street Railway
company and the Northern Trust
Company in which he knocks out the
last hope of the promoters to collect
for the so-ca11ed Doodle" ordinance.
In the decision Judge Be1den holds:
''The plaintiffs are the owners ard
holders of the bonds in question and
said bonds are now due and payable.
Demand for payment has been made
and refused. But said bonds are void
alb initio because issued in violation
of Section 1853 r. S. and therefore no
recovery can be had thereon.
"Ordinance No. 24O was held by the
Supreme Court to be absolutely void,
and consequently neither it nor the
attempted amendment to it conferred
any right whatever upon Haynes,
C1ausen, Arnold, Kenosha Street
Railway Company or any one else to
construct a street railway in the
streets of Kenosha. 1t is unques-
| toned law that no attempted amend
ment of void ordinance can amount
to a re-ena ctment thereof or be of
any validity or effect itself, unless
the amendment is sufficient to stand
as an original act of legislation with
out regard to the void ordinance.
The void ordinance was not re-en-
acted or validated by either the at
, tempted amendment of October 10,
1901, itself not legally enacted, or by
Section 1762a r. S.
"The plaintiffs acquired no rights
whatever under Ordinance No. 240,
or it's attempted amendment, and had
nothing to assign when they assumed
to assign said ordinance to Arnold.
That the ordinance was void was
fully recognized by the Kenosha
Street Railway company, as appears
from the record of proceedings of
it's board of directors, May 5, 1902.
/ "The consideration paid by the
| plaintiffs to Arnold for the bonds
in suit is not in issue here. The
question is whether the bonds
were lawfully issued. The considera-
ton for the transfer of the bonds in
suit to Arnold by Kenosha Street
Railway Company was not payment
of an Indebtedness of Kenosha Street
Railway Company to Arnold Electric
] Power Station Company, but was
Arnold's agreement to save Kenosha
Street Railway Company harmless
on account of it's obligation to Arnold
Electric Power Station Company.
/ The records Of Kenosha Street Rail
way Company so declare.
''The property sought to be reach
ed in this suit never belonged to the
Kenosha Street Railway Company
and therefore was never subject to
the lien of the trust deed. This pro-
! perty was laid in the streets of Keno
sha under the contract of August
18th, 1900, by the Arnold Construc-
ton Company. The railway was
never completed or equipped, or the
work done delivered to or accepted by
the Kenosha Street Railway Com
pany. The contract for construction
was abrogated by the Kenosha Street
Railway Company. The fragm entary
work done by the construction COM
pany belonged to it and was by it in
corporated in and turned over to the
Kenosha Electric Railway Company
under it's constructing contract with
| that company.
| 1T does not appear to the Court
that the Kenosha Electric Railway
Company was succeeding corpora
ton in that it took over property of
the Kenosha Street Railway Com
pany. 1t was an Independent corpora
ton, and it does not appear that it
had any connection or dealings with
the Kenosha Street Railway Com
pany.
'The Court will hold that the bonds
in suit were and are invalid; and that
the property sought to be reached in
this suit never belonged to the Keno
sha Street Railway Company and
consequently never was subject to
the lien of the trust deed, could not
be the basis or consideration for the
bond issue, and that the complaint
should be dismissed. -