Слике страница
PDF
ePub

The result of its conclusion was that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and judgment was entered accordingly. The plaintiff thereupon sued out this writ of error.

By an act of the Legislature of Kentucky, passed February 24, 1869, the above-named railroad company was incorporated and authorized to construct a railroad from a point on the Ohio river to a point on the boundary line between Kentucky and Tennessee. Acts of Kentucky 1869, vol. 1, p. 463, c. 1578. In the course of its authorized route was Green county, the defendant in this suit. With a view, apparently, to enable the counties along its route to aid the railroad company in the construction of its road, authority for that purpose was conferred by the act as follows: "Sec. 15. That any city, town or county through which said proposed road shall pass is hereby authorized to subscribe stock in said railroad company in any amount any such city, town, or county may desire; and that the county court of any such county is authorized to issue the bonds of their respective counties in such amount as the county court may direct; and the chairman and board of trustees, or mayor and aldermen of any town, and the mayor and aldermen or council of any city, are hereby authorized to issue the bonds of their respective towns or cities in like manner. All said bonds shall be payable to bearer, with coupons attached, bearing any rate of interest not exceeding six per cent. per annum, payable semi-annually in the city of New York, payable at such times as they may designate, not exceeding thirty years from date; but before any such subscription on the part of the city, town or county shall be valid or binding on the same, the mayor and aldermen, or chairman and board of trustees of any town, the mayor and aldermen or council of any city, and the county court of any county having jurisdiction, shall submit the question of any such subscription to the qualified voters of such city, town or county in which the proposed subscription is made, at such time or times as said chairman and board of trustees, or mayor and aldermen of any town, mayor and aldermen or council of any city, or the county court of any county, as aforesaid, may, by order, direct; and should a majority of the qualified voters voting at any such election vote in favor of subscribing said stock in said railroad company, it shall be the duty of such county court, trustees, or other authorities aforesaid, to make the subscription in the name of their respective cities, towns or counties, as the case may be, and proceed to have issued the bonds to the amount of such subscription as hereinbefore directed.” And it was further provided that the application for such proceedings might be made to the judge of the county court instead of the court; whereupon he was vested with the same power. And the railroad company was authorized to "receive subscriptions of stock to their company by individuals, towns, cities, counties, or other corporations, whether payable in money or other things, with such terms and times of payment, con. ditions annexed, and kind of payment that may be set forth in the subscrip tion."

On June 17, 1869, upon the request of the commissioners of the railroad company, above named, the judge of the county court entered the order following:

"Present, Thos. R. Barnett, Judge.

“Whereas the Commissioners of the Cumberland & Ohio Railroad Company, by virtue of the authority delegated to them by the charter of said company, have requested the county court of Green county to order an election in the said county of Green, and to submit to the qualified voters of said county the question whether said county court shall subscribe for and on behalf of said county, two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to the capital stock of the Cumberland & Ohio Railroad Company and payable in the bonds of said county, having twenty years to run, and bearing six per cent. interest from date, and upon condition that said company shall locate and construct said railroad through the said county of Green, and within one mile of the town of Greensburg, in said county, and sball expend the amount so subscribed within the limits of Green county; and also upon the further condition that said bonds shall not be issued or said county pay any part of the principal or interest on said amount subscribed to said Cumberland & Ohio Railroad Company, until said county of Green is fully and completely exonerated from the payment of the capital stock voted by said county, and authorized to be subscribed by said

"I *

*

Green county court to the Elizabethtown & Tennessee Railroad or any part of the interest thereon. It is therefore ordered by the court that an election by the qualified votes of Green county, at the voting places in said county, be held and conducted by the several officers as prescribed by law for holding elections on the third day of July, 1869, to vote on the question as to whether or not the said county court shall, for, and on behalf of said county subscribe two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to the capital stock of the said Cumberland & Ohio Railroad conditioned and to be paid, as above stated."

The election was held. The vote was in favor of the proposition and was so properly certified. Thereafterwards, and on June 3, 1870, the county judge made an order, wherein after reciting the proceedings above recited, he says:

do hereby subscribe for two hundred and fifty thousand dollars of the capital stock of the said Cumberland & Ohio Railroad Company for and on behalf of said county of Green, which subscription is to be paid in the bonds of said county as prescribed in said order of submission, and this subscription is made with the conditions set out in the order of this court ordering said election and now of record in the office of this county.” On October 12, 1871, the county judge ordered the bonds to be printed. The bonds, of which these in suit were a part, were issued and delivered to the railroad company during the succeeding year, 1872, the bulk of them on or about August 15th, on which day the county judge made the following order :

“Present, Thos. R. Barnett, Judge.

“Application was this day made to the presiding judge of the county court of Green county, by the president and board of directors of the Cumberland & Ohio Railroad Company to issue the balance of the bonds of said county to the amount of the subscription of said county of Green to said Cumberland & Ohio Railroad Company, and the court being sufficiently advised, it is ordered by the court that the balance of said bonds be and they are hereby ordered to be issued, the same to be signed by the judge of said county court of Green county, and countersigned by the clerk of said court, as required by the charter of said company."

Thereupon the $250,000.00 of the capital stock of the railroad company was delivered to the county, which has since been retained and owned by it. For a time the county raised by tax and paid the interest accruing on the bonds, but thereafter it refused to recognize their validity, and refused to make further payment. The plaintiff is the bona fide holder for value of the bonds and coupons in suit, but had notice that the railroad had not been built further than from the north line of said county to Greensburg, which is about onequarter of the way through the county. As to this latter fact, it may be noted in this connection that only $150.000 of the proceeds of the bonds had been expended by the Cumberland & Ohio Railroad Company in the construction of the road, and this was on that part of the road north of Greensburg. This expenditure did not complete that portion of the road, but it was completed by the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company under the stipulation in a lease to it of its road by the Cumberland & Ohio Railroad Company, but at what cost does not appear. In respect to the conditions of the subscription for stock to pay which these bonds were voted, the facts were these: In 1868 at an election in Green county it had been voted to subscribe for $300,000 of the stock of the Elizabethtown & Tennessee Railroad Company, to be paid for in the bonds of the county. Upon making a record of this election the county court made the following order: “It is now therefore ordered that the clerk of this court, for and on behalf of the county of Green, make said subscription on the terms specified in the order submitting the question to a vote as aforesaid." But nothing further was ever done in regard to such a subscription either by the county or the Elizabethtown & Tennessee Railroad Company. Yo stock was issued to the county or bonds issued to the railroad company. Some further incidental facts will be hereafter mentioned in the opinion in the discussion of the questions involved in the controversy. The bonds in suit, except the numbers given to each bond and the amount therein specified, were in the form following:

“United States of America, county of Green, $.500.00. State of Kentucky. For the Cumberland & Ohio Railroad.

"Twenty years after date, the county of Green, in the state of Kentucky, will pay to the holder of this bond the sum of five hundred dollars with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent. per annum, payable semi-annually upon presentation of the proper coupons hereto attached, for the principal and interest being payable at the bank of America, in the city of New York.

"In testimony whereof, the judge of said county of Green has hereunto set his hand and affixed the seal of said county, on the first day of April, A. D. 1871, and caused the same to be attested by the county clerk, who has also signed the coupons hereto attached. “[Green county seal.]

T. R. Barnett, Judge.

"D. T. Towles, Clerk." The conclusion of law by the court below was “that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, because the conditions upon which the subscription for the capital stock of the Cumberland & Ohio Railroad Company was made, and upon which the bonds sued on were issued, have not been performed or complied with.”

George Du Relle and E. F. Trabue, for plaintiff in error.
Ernest Macpherson, for defendant in error.
Before LURTON, SEVERENS, and RICHARDS, Circuit Judges.

SEVERENS, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above). The questions to be decided upon the facts found, the substance of which has been stated, and the proper inferences to be drawn therefrom, are these: First, whether it should be held that the county of Green had been exonerated from the payment of the subscription for the capital stock of the Elizabethtown & Tennessee Railroad Company; and, second, whether these bonds are invalid in the hands of the plaintiff by reason of the fact that only $150,000 of the proceeds of the bonds have been expended in the construction of the road in Green county, or by reason of the fact that the same has not been built through the county. These questions turn largely upon the proper interpretation of the so-called conditions upon which the county authorized these bonds to be issued.

Upon our conference after the original argument in this court, we were in doubt upon some of the questions presented for decision, and certified them to the Supreme Court for its opinion. One—the first of the questions-as that court thought, involved too many points. But we requested that if that question should be deemed too broad, then that the court should advise us whether, "Assuming the facts to be as found, was a bona fide purchaser, before maturity of these bonds and coupons for value, entitled to assume in his purchase that Green county had, before their issuance, been fully and completely exonerated from the payment of the capital stock subscribed for by the county court of said county for and in behalf of said county to the Elizabethtown & Tennessee Railroad Company?” The Supreme Court answered this question as follows: "Construing the second question to inquire not whether there is conclusive presumption, but whether on the facts found there is any presumption at all that the county had been exonerated from its former subscription to another railroad, we answer, Yes.” Quinlan v. Green County, 205 U. S. 410, 27 Sup. Ct. 505, 51 L. Ed. 860. On receiving this answer, we heard further argument upon the consequences of the opinion given by the Supreme Court as well as upon the question of the character of the other so-called conditions, about which the Supreme Court expressed no opinion.

We agree that the exoneration of Green county from any liability on account of its former subscription to another railroad was a condition precedent to the issuance of the bonds, and that without the accomplishment of this condition the plaintiff cannot recover. We concede this, although we cannot help thinking that there is room for the belief that the Legislature of Kentucky intended that the county judge should determine when and whether the condition had been accomplished, and that to hold otherwise is to suppose that these bonds, although they were by the terms of the statute to be negotiable coupon bonds, would, although issued and put upon the market, yet be clogged with doubt of their validity, a doubt which even now might be and still is urged against them. Such bonds would not be marketable, and their purpose would be utterly defeated. For this reason it has sometimes been held that, although the statute does not expressly nominate any officer who is to pass upon the execution of the condition precedent to the issue of such bonds, yet that, in view of the consequences, an implication might arise that the Legislature intended that the officer of the municipality in whose behalf he was acting, and who was charged with the custody and the issuance of the bonds, should, before delivering them, ascertain and determine whether the condition had been complied with. Especially would this be so when the question whether there had been a compliance is one which calls for the exercise of judgment upon facts with which he would be most conversant. It is true that in most of these cases, perhaps in all, there were recitals in the bonds of the regularity of the anterior proceedings or the fulfillment of conditions precedent; but it would seem that for other reasons, if it is intended by the statute that the determination of the fact is committed to the official who issues the bonds, such determination ought to settle the fact. If in such conditions the bonds should be issued without such determination, the question would be open. But here the county judge acted advisedly. In the order that the bonds be issued, he recites that he was sufficiently advised—borrowing an expression from legal procedure--to denote that he had taken notice of and considered the question whether the conditions existed which authorized the issuance of the bonds; in other words, that he had exercised the function devolved upon him. Granting, what must be regarded as settled by authority, that when the condition consists of a distinct and indubitable fact, and nothing is left to the judgment of the official charged with the delivery of the bonds, his delivery of them without the occurrence of the condition would be unauthorized and the bonds be void, yet it would seem upon principle, that if the question whether the condition has been accomplished is one of doubt and uncertainty, and it is apparent that the officer who has charge of the issuance of the bonds is to determine the fact of compliance with the condition, his determination would conclude the question, and, if in the affirmative, bind the county. This is, as we understand, the doctrine on which the judgment of the Supreme Court in Provident Trust Co. v. Mercer County, 170 U. S. 593, 604, 18 Sup. Ct. 788, 42 L. Ed. 1156, was finally rested. But without pursuing that subject further, we are of opinion that, upon other grounds, the question whether Green county was exonerated from the obligations of the former vote should be determined in the affirmative. We may say in passing that there seems to be grave reasons for doubting whether Green county ever came under an obligation to the Elizabethtown & Tennessee Railroad Company. The subscription was voted, and the county court ordered its clerk to subscribe for the stock. But that was all. The clerk did not subscribe. No bonds were ever issued, and no stock was ever delivered or tendered to the county. In Bates County v. Winters, 112 U. S. 325, 5 Sup. Ct. 157, 28 L. Ed. 744, Chief Justice Waite, after referring to previous cases, summed up the rule as follows:

"The rule may be stated thus: An actual manual subscription on the books of a railroad company is not indispensably necessary to bind a municipality as a subscriber to the capital stock. If the body or agency having authority to make ich a subscription passes an ordinance or resolution to the effect that it does thereby, in the name and behalf of the municipality, subscribe a specified amount of stock, and presents a copy of that resolution to the company for acceptance as a subscription, and the company does, in fact, accept, and notifies the municipality, or its proper agent, to that effect, the contract of subscription is complete, and binds the parties according to its terms.”

This is a careful and undoubtedly correct statement of the law upon the subject. See, also, Morawetz on Corp. $$ 61, 134; Greene v. Sigua Iron Co., 88 Fed. 203, 31 C. C. A. 458. The county judge might well have thought that as there had been no complete subscription by an actual subscription, and by the acceptance and notification of the railroad company, the county was exonerated from its vote to authorize the proposed subscription. The language of the condition is that the county shall be “exonerated from the payment of the capital stock voted by said county and authorized to be subscribed by said Green county court to the Elizabethtown & Tennessee Railroad.” This does not import that a completed subscription had been made, but only that a subscription had been authorized by the former vote; and the county would be exonerated if the subscription which it had authorized was not completed so as to bind the county. These bonds were not issued until four years after the vote of the county authorizing the subscription for stock of the Elizabethtown & Tennessee Railroad Company had been taken and recorded. Meantime, this latter company had given no token of its acceptance, and the county had taken no further step after the direction of the county court to its clerk to make the subscription upon the terms specified in the order submitting the question to a vote. And the subscription was never completed. What more complete exoneration from its former vote could the county of Green have? But, to return to the line of reasoning which we were intending to pursue, we are advised by the answer of the Supreme Court that there was, upon the facts found, a presumption in favor of the bonds that the county had been exonerated from the vote to subscribe to the other railroad stock; not a conclusive presumption, but one that might be controverted. But there is nothing in the facts found which controvert it. On the con

« ПретходнаНастави »