Court Opinion

ID: 8310308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-10-17 13:47:29.909087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:44:42.061017
License: Public Domain

Miller, C. J.
This motion for a rehearing of the motion for a new trial is a very unusual proceeding, and I have great doubt whether it ought to be entertained, even if the motion ought originally to have been granted; but looking over the case again, in the light of the pleas and agreed statement of facts, I am still of opinion that the defendant, the city of De Soto, is the lawful successor of the town of De Soto, which issued the bonds on which the judgment was rendered. The fact that the present city contains 400 acres less land in its lim* *781its than the former town, does not change the liability of the people who constitute that town, nor does the change from a town to a city, nor does the decree attempting to abrogate the city organized in 1877, destroy the obligations of the town of 1872. When these people became organized into a city which is now in existence, that city, as the successor of the town of 1872, is liable for the debts of the former.
The motion for a rehearing is overruled.