County of Bates v. Winters

97 U.S. 83 (____)

COUNTY OF BATES
v.
WINTERS.

Supreme Court of United States.

Mr. Thomas C. Reynolds and Messrs. Glover & Shipley for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. T.K. Skinker, contra.

MR. JUSTICE HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.

If we hold that there was no valid subscription until that made on the 18th of January, 1871, which was to the Lexington, Lake, and Gulf Road Company, it is open to the objection that the township voted an authority to subscribe to the stock of one company, and the county court subscribed to the stock of a different company. This was condemned in Harshman v. Bates County (92 U.S. 569), which arose upon the same issue of bonds and in relation to the same roads as the case before us. That case has since been modified as to the first point decided in it, in relation to the number of votes required to authorize the subscription, but remains unimpaired as to the point we are considering.

It is said that the subscription was, in law, made on the 14th of June, 1870, to the Lexington, Chillicothe, and Gulf Railroad Company; and that, having been made by the authority of the popular vote, it could be transferred to the consolidated organization. Nugent v. The Supervisors (19 Wall. 241) is cited to sustain this proposition.

It is decided, in that case, that an actual, manual subscription on the books of a company is not indispensable; that where an order was made by a county court, which said that it subscribed for a specified number of shares of railroad stock, which was accepted by the company, and notice of such acceptance given to the county court, when the minds of the parties met, and both understood that a contract had been made, and where the county court had accepted the position of a stockholder, received certificates for the stock subscribed, and voted as a stockholder, that these facts constituted a valid subscription.

In County of Moultrie v. Savings Bank (92 U.S. 631) a like decision was had, and upon like facts. In declaring the resolution of the corporation to have been an executed subscription, the court use this language: "The authorized body of a municipal corporation may bind it by an ordinance, which, in favor of private persons interested therein, may, if so intended, operate as a contract; or they may bind it by a resolution, or by vote clothe its officers with power to act for it. The former was the clear intention in this case. The board clothed no officer with power to act for it. The resolution to subscribe was its own act, its immediate subscription."

A similar case is that of Justices of Clarke County v. Paris, &c. (11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 143), where the order was entered in these words (in part): "With the concurrence of all the magistrates of the county, ordered, that the county court of Clarke County subscribe, as they hereby do, for fifty shares of stock in the Paris" Company, &c. The court say (at p. 146): "It is manifest on the face of the order that it was made as a subscription. The suspending order of October calls it a subscription, and the evidence shows that it was so intended and understood when made, both by the court which made it and by the company which solicited and accepted it."

The present case is quite a different one. The order of the county court was not intended, as in the cases referred to, to be final and self-executing. While it recited that the sum named should be, and was thereby, subscribed, it "authorized and directed" the agent "to make said subscription on the stock-books of the said company," upon the conditions specified, and to report to the court thereon.

Having failed, for the reasons given by him, to make the subscription, the agent reported to the county court his doings, and "that the bonds of the township are not, therefore, subscribed;" and the county court approved his report.

A subscription to the amount of $90,000 was made in January, 1871, by color of said authority, on the books of the Lexington, Lake, and Gulf Railroad Company. This subscription was accepted by that company, and a certificate of stock to the amount of such subscription was then, for the first time, issued to the county.

The company whose stock was thus received has graded in part the road, but never completed it. The county of Bates or the town of Mount Pleasant has never, in fact, received any benefit from this issue of its bonds.

The county court did not intend their action in June, 1870, to be final, and did not understand that a subscription was thereby completed. Their vote was a declaration that the power to subscribe should be exercised, and was an authority to their agent to perfect a contract with the railroad company. on the conditions set forth. No acceptance was made by the railroad company, no notice of acceptance was given, nor was there any act or fact which afforded a pretext for saying that the railroad company was bound by the contract of subscription. While it refused to allow the agent to withdraw his evidence of authority, it said nothing and did nothing to indicate that the minds of the parties had met upon the terms of a subscription. The county court was precise and particular in requiring those conditions to be copied in full on the books of the company, as the conditions on which the subscription was made; and there could be no mutual contract until the railroad company assented, on its part, to those conditions.

At a subsequent time, Jan. 18, 1871, when it had determined to issue bonds to a different company, and apparently as its justification for so doing, the county court recited that a subscription had been made to the Chillicothe road. It at once, and in the same order, contradicted and repudiated this recital, by directing a subscription for $90,000 of bonds in the Lexington and Lake Railroad Company. If the subscription had been made before to one company, there was no occasion or authority for a subscription to another. This historical statement furnishes no satisfactory evidence of an actual or legal subscription in June, 1870.

We are of the opinion that the action of the county court on the 14th of June, 1870, did not constitute a subscription to the stock of the Lexington, Chillicothe, and Lake Railroad Company, and that the case of the defendants in error is fatally defective, under the ruling of Harshman v. Bates County, in this: that the popular vote gave authority to subscribe to the Lexington, Chillicothe, and Gulf Railroad Company, while the subscription was made and the bonds issued to a different company, to wit, to the Lexington, Lake, and Gulf Railroad Company.

The same decision holds that the recitals in the bonds are such that there can be no bona fide holders of them; and to the like effect in principle is McClure v. Township of Oxford, 94 U.S. 429.

The judgment must be reversed, and the case remanded to the Circuit Court, with directions to proceed to a new trial, according to the views above expressed; and it is

So ordered.

MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE and MR. JUSTICE STRONG, dissenting.

I dissent from the opinion in this case, upon the ground that it is in conflict with prior decisions of this court upon the same subject.