Court Opinion

ID: 8122926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 15:01:59.437525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:05.510786
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Harlan
delivering the opinion of the court affirming the judgment of the circuit court.
"Where, by the law of the state as expounded by its supreme court and acted upon by its legislative and executive departments, bonds issued to a railroad company were held valid obligations of the municipality by whom they were issued, this court will not feel bound to follow later decisions of the state supreme court modifying their former opinions. The defendant in error is a bona fide holder for value, and his rights and obligations depend upon the same rule. In the absence of constitutional provisions making a distinction between municipal subscriptions to stock and municipal appropriations of money or credit, there is no solid ground upon which the legislature can rest such a distinction. That the bonds -were voted to one railroad company, and were delivered to a consolidated company, will not invalidate them, as they must be deemed to have been given in view of the then-existing statute authorizing two or more railroad companies forming a continuous or connected line to consolidate and form one corporation and investing the consolidated company with the powers, rights, property, and franchises of the constituent companies.
Cases cited in the opinion: As to constitutionality of state law, Taylor v. Ypsilanti, 4 Morr. Tr. 326, followed; and People v. Salem, 20 Mich. 452; Bay State v. State Treasurer, 23 Mich. 499; Thomas v. City of Port Huron, 27 Mich. 320, not followed. Rights of holder for value: Railroad Co. v. National Bank, 102 U. S. 14. Donations and descriptions: Railroad Co. v. County of Otoe, 16 Wall. 674; Olcott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678; Town of Queensbury v. Culver, 19 Wall. 91. Consolidation of railroads: County of Scotland v. Thomas, *63694 U. S. 682; Town of East Lincoln v. Davenport, Id. 801; Wilson v. Salamanca, 99 U. S. 504; Nugent v. Supervisors, 19 Wall. 252; Empire v. Darlington, 101 U. S. 91; Menasha v. Hazard, 102 U. S. 81; Harter v. Kernochan, 103 U. S. 574; Tipton Co. v. Locomotive Works, Id. 532.