*1 Moberly. 580 Ct. Jarrolt v. Moberly. v. Jarrolt 18, 1871, Missouri, Assembly approved 1. The act March of the General of provides any city, shall be lawful for council of or the “it the Which lease, lands, donate, town, any incorporated purchase trustees and of ' any company upon or sell terms and the same to railroad such conditions assisting may proper, purposes as such of and board deem for . inducing company machine-shops and build or other such railroad to locate lands, and, purposes, levy improvements upon taxes for such town, city the taxable and to borrow of or Provided, city purposes: major- a issue the bonds of such or town for such ity qualified city, special at a election to be voters of such town or therein, donation,” void, being purchase is shall assent to such 1865, adopted in which in conflict with sect. 14 of art. 11 of the Constitution any county, city, Assembly declares that shall not authorize General to, in, any company, or town to or to loan its credit become stockholder association, voters of such or unless two-thirds therein, county, city, regular special at a election to be held mr shall assent thereto.” n 2.The provision prohibits an the creation of indebtedness direct municipal permit loan of credit not the indirect use of such credit for does purpose. the same penalties prescribed, 16,1872, forbidding, under certain therein Eeb. 8. The thereof, the credit municipality in its behalf to loan the officers of a company, or other without to or subscribe stock donate voters, merely prohibi- assent of two-thirds of authority character, on those officers when such tory no in its and’confers given. assent was “municipal corporation Held, therefore, of the inhabi- that the bonds of the Randolph, Moberly,” in the State tants of town of 1, pursu- Missouri, reciting “issued in May are dated March, twenty-sixth day of on the an held in said town ance of election purchase i). should donate to the said town to decide whether A. Railway Company Louis, two hundred acres City, and Northern Kansas St. of said election machine-shop purposes, the result two for of land purchase and twenty-eight donation one votes hundred donation; and, pursuance to orders of purchase and vote Moberly, town made on the inhabitants trustees of the board made in which orders were accord- day April, eighteenth d. A. Missouri, Assembly the State of entitled an act of General ance with ‘ lands, donate, purchase and to and towns cities Act to authorize An companies/ approved March lease, to railroad d. same a. or sell the 1870,” are void. for tbe of tbe United States Court tó the Circuit Error of Missouri. District Western The de- of Illinois. of the State is a citizen The plaintiff Oct. 1880.]
fendant is the city Moberly, municipal corporation State Missouri. This action was to recover brought judg- ment. several to, interest but coupons, .annexed originally from, now detached bonds issued lands, acres, of two hundred to be donated to consisting *2 Louis, St. Kansas and Northern City, Railway Company, “ — machine-shop which purposes.” desig- — nation to the first in the action avers that on given pleading the 1st of bond's, issued in similar May, fifty | form, numbers, $500, in their each for to each of differing only attached, $25, which each for the sum of twenty coupons' on the first of and of November of each payable day May year, and numbered from one and it sets forth a of twenty; copy — one of the bonds and as follows: coupons,
“Moberly Machine-shop Bonds< “No. .] United States oe America. [.$500. men
“Know all these presents, ‘municipal corpora- tion of the of inhabitants the town of in Moberly,’ the county of Missouri, in the of Randolph, State itself acknowledges indebted and bound to W. F. Burrows in firmly bearer the sum of five n hundred in dollars, current funds, which sum said inhabitants of Moberly the town of hereby promise to to the said W. F. pay bearer, Burrows or America, at the Bank of in the of city New York, ten after the of years bond, date this with together interest cent, thereon from date at the of annum, rate ten per per which shall be funds, interest current paid on the semi-annually, and surrender .said presentation at bank of the annexed coupons as they and severally become due but this bond payable, is pay- able at the option of the said inhabitants of the town Mob- hereof, at time three from years after the date erly and is by a tax on all payable only the real estate and special per- sonal and being corporate within limits of said lying town. “ This bond is of an issued election held in said pursuance March, .town on the 26th decide said day whether a. d. town should Louis, donate to St. Kansas purchase City, two hundred land Northern acres Railway Company the result said election two purposes, machine-shop donation, votes for the and twenty-eight purchase hundred Moberly. Ct donation; vote and one purchase pursu ance orders of the board of trustees of the inhabitants of the on town of made Moberly, day of eighteenth April, a. d. orders were made in with accordance an act of-the d Missouri, Assembly General State An entitle Act to donate, lease, cities towns to lands authorize and to 18th, to railroad or' sell same companies,’ March approved a.d. 1871. “ whereof, In the said witness inhabitants of the town of Moberly bond, have executed this the chairman of the board of trustees thereto, of said town his name clerk of said signing trustees, board, board of order said same and af- attesting thereto his and the seal of said signature fixing Missouri, town of on -of the first Moberly, county State Randolph, day of May, “J. B. Freeman, Trustees “Chairman the Board Inhabitants the Town “ATTEST: Dorsey, “J. W. Clark. [seal.] *3 Coupov No. “ Randolph County, Moberly, Missouri. [$2o. $25.] “ of of inhabitants the town The municipal corporation bearer, the Bank of America, city the at will Moberly pay dollars, York, on the first of day May, twenty-five of New , $500.00. on for months’ interest bond No. six “J. W. Cleric.” Dorsey, the is the holder of also avers plaintiff The petition annexed to $4,200, to these coupons originally amounting them, which are bo^ds, but now detached from due unpaid,' the To the sum he asks for which defend- judgment. petition act demurred, the things, on the among ant ground, bonds were issued is con- under which the of the legislature State, and that the the petition of with the Constitution flict a cause-of action. to constitute facts sufficient state not does demurrer, the to the plaintiff electing sustained The court . entered'thereon his judgment petition,'final stand upon defendant. the the however, divided opinion upon
The judges, and, in demurrer, accordance with raised by questions 588 Oct. 1880.] statute, certified, court, decision of this follow- have — differed, points'upon namely: ing First, 18, 1870, “An Whether act March entitled Act lands, donate, to cities towns to authorize purchase lease, or sell same recited companies,” bonds, 14 of is in conflict sect. art. 11 of the with Constitution of Missouri.
Second, states a Whether valid sufficient of action'. cause 18, 1870, of March The act under which the bonds were
issued, it declares that shall be lawful for the council any town, or the trustees city, any incorporated purchase lands, donate, lease, and to or sell the same to railroad com- any such terms and conditions such board deem pany, may and for the such rail- assisting purposes proper, inducing and build road locate or other im- machine-shops company lands; such and for such provements purposes levy town, the taxable taxes such or and to -upon city and to issue borrow such or town for Provided, a such voters purposes: majority or at election therein, such to be city, special town shall and donation.” Constitution, art. 14 of of Missouri of Sect. conflicted, which was contended the with “ declares that General shall not authorize Assembly any county, city, in, to become a or town stockholder to loan its credit association, or to, unless company, at a city, therein, election be held or special shall assent regular thereto.” to the meet
To objections alleged invalidity cited the act of the Feb. legislature the plaintiff *4 “ counties, cities, Act to An protect entitled incorporated from combinations between railroad towns companies, county cities, courts, councils and boards of trustees of incor- city towns,” first section of which declares that “no porated council court nor county, city county any any city, any town, trustees of any shall hereafter incorporated board have donate, take, or subscribe stock for such the right .to county, Ct town, in, to, or or the credit thereof loan city, incorporated any railroad or other or association company, corporation, company, unless authorized do so of two-thirds of the vote quali- fied voters of .town. -And such or incorporated city, n council, court, of a or any member justice city town, member of a who board of trustees of incorporated any donate, take, subscribe stock for such shall' hereafter vote to or cqun town, in, credit or or loan the thereof city, incorporated ty, to, or or railroad other company, company, any association, authorized do so a vote two-thirds unless or such county, city, incorporated town, shall be and on conviction felony, adjudged guilty thereof shall be penitentiary punished imprisonment less than not two years.” of acts inconsistent Other sections all acts or parts repeal effect its On 29th of with it. The took on passage. act, March, 1872, another terms the legislature passed 18, 1870, so as the first section of the act of March amending — as follows: read the trustees of be for the council of or any city, It shall lawful donate, lease, or land, and to town, to incorporated any contract, for and to a period sell same to company, any- railroad company, of time not with such twenty years, exceeding at of the taxes which any of all or part may for the payment town or for such city, time authorities such be levied com- of such railroad upon town or city purposes only, property as such board of said terms and conditions such upon pany, in- assisting deem for the city may purpose or town proper, work, machine, locate and build said railroad company ducing land for pur- or improvements, or other shops, taxable levy taxes purchase, of such pose and issue and to borrow Provided, that town for such purpose: such city'or at a regular special voters of such or city, town or dona- therein, shall to such purchase election tion.” its act took effect on
This passage. John D. in error. Mr. Stevenson plaintiff Overall, J. S. Mr. .contra.
Oct., v, Mobérly. 585' Jarrolt 1880.] Field, case,
Mr. Justice after delivered the stating of the court. of the inhibition to State Constitution was object ’' n prevent counties, cities, the creation debts and towns on by association, belialf of without the any company, corporation assent of loan of their voters. The their is, credit, of their for placing obligations payment for the use of was the usual mode in companies, incurred, com- which Aid in this way indebtedness. construction such' as for the panies, particularly organized bodies, railroads, so given by frequently municipal effect, Missouri, before the of 1865 went into Constitution instances to embarrass and them to in.many subject greatly burdensome for the taxation interest oppressive provide on their and the ultimate of the obligations principal. payment
Numerous acts of the officers of had legislature authorized counties and cities subscribe for stock in companies, railway for to issue their without limit amount aid .’as-to n assent of those who bé were to without previous taxed ,which road,, their In instances the of: payment. in-aid many were-issued, constructed, the bonds no find as benefit never cities, resulted counties their to the inhabitants naturally felt under the burdens- their officers had impatient im- imposed. providently (cid:127)It was the of. constitutional to chéck. purpose provision n two-thirds, abuses,
these by requiring- previous bodies before municipal any more stock should be subscribed them or further indebted- ness be thus incurred. The issue of obligations directly - association, nr without such company,. assent, letter of ’and prohibition, purchase" within association, to be given company, Or corpora- tion others, -the-issueof without such obligations assent, is to. within its Both modes of the bonds of the muni- spirit. using credit, a use of its the difference cipality are-equally the one is a an direct indirect way employing the credit of the for the benefit municipality railway would be It narrow strict construction of company.. constitutional to hold that it the” creation provision prohibited Ct. direct use of its credit
of indebtedness by municipality creation tbe for tbe permitted railway company, yet constitutional A pro- indirect use of it the same purpose. defeat its evident so as to vision should not be construed pur- *6 effective but rather so as to it operation suppress pose, give accordance this it aimed. In with the mischief at which was v. Bates that this Harshman County court principle, to in Missouri townships the extended inhibition question towns, counties, cities, and as to townships as well although court, that the mere contend, said the To not mentioned. the enabled of into legislature subdivision counties townships is to the manifest the constitutional ignore to evade provision instrument; ‘not be could 'that intention of spirit as to the to legislature that it was intended restrict possible of to mere sectional portions and not to restrict it as counties the counties. 92 S. 569. U. the at the in this
Considering spirit, looking provision that the issue the we to be are evil prevented, lands, to to be donated its bonds to defendant of purchase be here, could not its credit which' the was a loan of railway the of two-thirds of the assent made without a return the thing It is true that loan the implies city. would, therefore, credit loan of some future A loaned at day. benefit should its pro- the seem to receiving require party bonds issued. its the vide for cancellation by payment that, whilst so, hold unreasonable to it would be This a, to intended prohibit tempo- the framers of the Constitution the without use of the credit of a municipality rary voters, were willing its of two-thirds of assent without made be the credit should that the absolute grant to a construction leading do not think that assent. We 18,1870, of March The such a conclusion is permissible. the with Constitution in conflict must, therefore, be held to be ,a mu- of the voters authorizes of the State. It majority declares the legis- do that which Constitution nicipality the assent of done except authorize be shall not lature of such voters. construc- a similar of Missouri has given Court Supreme act of legislature An the constitutional tion to provision. Oct. 1880.]
had,
for the establishment of
among
things, provided
other
school mines
as a branch of the
metallurgy
university
State,
which was to be located in such
mines
county having
as should donate to
the board
curators of the
university,
school,
buildings
avail-
purposes
greatest
amount of
able
and bonds. The act authorized
court, of a
desirous of
donation,
county
making
issue bonds of the latter to be
delivered
the board
curators
sold,
and to be
them
used in the
proceeds
of the land and the erection of the
Under
necessary buildings.
act,
this
Court
ordered
issue
County
Phelps County
times,
$75,000,
at different
in all
amounting
mentioned,
used
their
to the curators. The
delivery
order
made without
of two-thirds
the quali-
and,
State,
fied voters of
sale of
the court
that their
enjoined,
holding
inhibition,
issue was a loan of credit within the constitutional
*7
issue,
that the
their
and
act
without
sanction
authorizing
of two-thirds
the voters of the
was void.
It stated
the'
of the inhibition
that
courts
object
upon
town
was to
them
from
municipalities
prevent
taxing
without'their assent.
The case of the Court of St Louis subsequent County County does not this decision. Griswold The change bonds against lands considered issued to in St. there Louis for purchasé Ut. 588 Jakrolt for tbe benefit of its inhabitants. There was public park in no loan credit the use of parties case. id. 16, .1872, The act of the Feb. legislature much reliance is counsel for the placed plaintiff, merely character, counties, in its the officers of prohibitory forbidding cities, donate, take, rail- towns to or subscribe stock in any association, road or other or the loan company, corporation, their, credit, of their without the assent of previous voters, and for a prescribing punishment disregard confers, itself, inhi- of its It no The provisions. authority. its bition the officers town to loan county, city, not an author- others, credit without the was was to create. to loan it when such assent given. Authority ity con- an indebtedness on-certain except municipality, ditions, conferred, was not because the thus to create attempt made as a crime. Further punishable legislation was. the evident needed. Such was opinion- legislature act, State,, for, March, an additional on the 29th of passed , 1872, the in terms. authority given answer’,therefore, the first certified to us We question affirmative, and the second the negative.
Judgment affirmed. Mr. Justice dissenting. I-^arlan held, that an election was recitals show three before the the town passage Moberly, days 29,1872, to decide whether town should of March pur- Louis, chase Kansas Northern and donate to St. City, hundred acres of land for two machine- Railway Company, hundred and votes were that two shop purposes; twenty-eight *8 of, such donation cast in favor one against, pur- only ; that the were issued chase bonds in question pursuance the board of trustees election and of the of the that orders 1872; town, made on -the and that April, eighteenth day made in with aforesaid act of orders accordance 18, 1870. March, conceded it to the settled law of Mis-
The circuit be judge aid could souri that railroad municipal given companies be ' Moberly.' . Oct. 1880.] v. State; and that of the if the Constitution
without infringing
or
constituted an
essential part
integral
rail
machine-shops
use or
for its convenient
then
road,
operation,
or were necessary
1870,
to the
18,
was not obnoxious
the act of March
principles
In the view necessary was, not, this transaction or a loan of decide whether credit. was, For, must be assuming regarded and sufficient of action a valid cause the defend- against stating pn ant, if, election, March, at the time of the the 26th of 17, 1870, had become the act of March so modified by toas the assent of two-thirds require subsequent legislation, voters of town as a condition qualified precedent issue of bonds to of lands to Be applied any to the railroad donated company machine-shop purposes. think, such, was the And I effect of the act of Feb. legal declares, first clause first The of its section no court of nor county, any any city, .council any board of trustees of shall hereafter any incorporated have take, donate, or stock for such right subscribe town, in, or loan the to, credit thereof incorporated city, . . railroad . unless authorized to do so a vote company voters of such incor- county, city, course, town.” The General knew porated Assembly, when 16, 1872, the law of Feb. that the they passed previous statute March had assumed to authorize counties, cities, towns to make donations for ma- companies, a bare vote of the purposes, upon chine-shop majority thereafter, donations prohibition electors.. except the sanction of two-thirds voters, was, with of the qualified former an legislation, view affirmative equivalent recogni- *9 v. Mobeelt. Ct. 590 Jaebolt make such donations thereafter to pursuance tion of power 16, act of Feb. That act im- 1872. of the provisions 18,1870, into the act of March requirement ported affirmative vote as condition two-thirds precedent for The re- of land purposes. express donation machine-shop 16, 2, of all of laws inconsist- act of Feb. 187 parts peal, by therewith, of the evinces General upon part ent purpose, more than declare a violation of that to do something Assembly, named, therein to be a of the Nor act, officers felony. by any counties, cities, and from towns intended withdraw itwas circumstances, to make such donations. under any authority, there was also a purpose provide against Manifestly credit, under of donations loaus any existing possibility sanction of two-thirds of the statute, with the express except of the The municipality. only difficulty voters arises from the this conclusion character negative the way 16, clause of act of of the Feb. 1872. first .language that seems to be removed the fact a pre- that difficulty But counties, cities, assumed confer having upon vious statute to malee-donations to railroad companies towns power T6,'' act of Feb. machine-shop purposes, object assent of two-thirds 1872, thereafter was require of acts inconsist- electors, and to all acts or parts of the repeal face, their show that ent with requirement. one. Had of all the electors these the assent voting except recited, terms, issued in that were pursuance they 18,1870, as modified legislation, the act of March subsequent have been no which to would question there ground issue them. authority of the bonds should not be
But rights purchaser statute, the reference to the because by authority sacrificed which, issued, was not full or accurate. technically held, 18, 1870, the statute of March election as When of Feb. authorized an issue of bonds modified by donated, lands to for the machine-shop pur- the town assenting poses, modified, statute, of that as thus seem thereto. provisions .The to-have been with. complied after the act of
I am of March passed Oct. 1880.J Adam Norris. 26,1870, election of cumulative
tbe March legislation, only in tbe act of March far as it related tcT embraced so subjects ). 16, 1870, modified tbe I think that act of Fé 17^ *10 of March tbe act of Feb. tbe act as modified by constitutional, and that tbe states a good defendant, issue, if tbe action tbe even cause of by against indicated, credit, loan of of bonds for tbe was a purposes within tbe of tbe State Constitution. meaning from
For these reasons I feel to dissent tbe obliged opinion and judgment.
Adam v. Norris. grant upon Mexican is in the nature of a patent a con issued confirmed A only parties by way quitclaim. It is as conclusive between the veyance that, thereto, States, validity the United evidence and is (92 473) Dale grant established. Miller v. U. S. cited and has been approved. upon superior survey patent Mexican a thereon are founded a a 2. Where by prior survey rights party are a grant, thereunder not concluded claimants. to other grant grantee survey patent was returned issued 3. A Land-Office, survey. ordered another of the General who the Commissioner survey is Held, patent the last not rendered invalid issued because, prior patent, -by purports lands not covered in addition to were so covered. convey those which verdict, good finding by after thé would be cured pleading which A A stipulation of the was submitted trial of the issue court which parties. for tbe Court of'tbe United States tbe Circuit Error of California. District court. tbe of tbe stated in opinion are facts
Tbe error. tbe plaintiffs F. Leib Mr. S. Bedington, and' Mr. James S. Brooks K. Benjamin
Mr. contra. tbe court. tbe delivered Justice Miller
Mr. land, brought recover was an action to possession This tbe Court of State tbe District Adam and Scbuman