Court Opinion

ID: 8310321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-10-17 13:47:30.770032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:44:42.001593
License: Public Domain

Treat, J.
Under the decision heretofore rendered in this case, the city of Memphis had no authority to issue bonds for a subscription to the railroad unless authorized so to do at an election held therefor. During the trial the record of the alleged election, whereby tho bonds would be validated, was offered in evidence, under objections by the defendant. Without passing on each of the various points for a new trial, it must suffice that the record of the election on its face shows non-conformity with the positive requirements of the statutes. Hence the court was in error in its rulings with respect to said record. The motion for new trial will therefore be granted, without considering the other points involved, inasmuch as the effect of said record must be conclusive in this suit as to the rights of the parties.
In order that the parties litigant may not be involved in further expense and costs, it may be well to state that the record of the election on its face shows that there was no authority for the issue of the bonds sued on. The parties, if they so elect, can submit the case on the evidence heretofore offered, and thereupon judgment would necessarily he given for the defendant. The matters of estoppel heretofore presented would not prevail in the absence of authority for the issue of the bonds.
*874A motion for a rehearing having been made by the plaintiff, and the matter reargued, the following opinion was delivered April 27, 1885:
Treat, J.
When this case was before the court at a former term, it was held by Judge McCrary that the authority of the defendant to subscribe stock under the railroad charters did not carry the right to issue bonds in payment thereof; hence, as that power must be derived from some other source, there being no estoppels by the recitals in the bonds, the plaintiff must produce evidence of such authority. The record of a special election had under the act of March 21, 1868, was produced, whereupon it was held, on the motion for new trial, that the same was void on its face; consequently, as no authority for the issue of the bonds existed, the bonds themselves were therefore void. On the reargument the attention of the court has been directed to the act of March 24, 1868; the other act referred to bearing date March 21, 1868. Under the constitution of 1865 registration of voters was exacted for either general or special elections, under such provisions as the legislature might prescribe with respect thereto. Legislation describing the details will be found in said act of March 21, 1868, conformity with which was not had. By the terms of the constitution, no county, city, or town, could become stockholders, or loan its credit, to any corporation, unless two-thirds of the qualified voters at a regular or special election should assent thereto. Although, under the rulings of the supreme court of Missouri, the right of defendant to subscribe to the stock of the corporations named existed, yet there was no right to issue bonds or loan its credit in payment of such subscription, except by complying with said constitutional provision. Hence, if the act of March 24,1868, contemplated a right to subscribe thereafter, and issue bonds, or to issue bonds for subscriptions under old charters, irrespective of the needed vote, the same would be invalid. In this case it fully appears that no authority to issue bonds was had under a valid election. The views of the court heretofore expressed are still adhered to, despite said act of March 24, 1868.
Motion overruled.