OGDEN V. COUNTY OF DAVIESS, 102 U. S. 634 (1880)Subscribe to Cases that cite 102 U. S. 634
U.S. Supreme Court
Ogden v. County of Daviess, 102 U.S. 634 (1880)
Ogden v. County of Daviess
102 U.S. 634
1. An act of the General Assembly of Missouri approved Jan. 4, 1860, authorizes counties, towns, and cities to subscribe to the stock of a railroad company which it incorporated, and issue bonds in payment therefor. The seventh section enacts that
"Upon the presentation of a petition of the president and directors of said company to the county court of any county through which said road may be located praying that a vote may be taken in any strip of country through which it may pass, not to exceed ten miles on either side of said road, that the inhabitants thereof are desirous of taking stock in said road and of voting upon themselves a tax for the payment of the same, it shall be the duty of said county court to order an election therein, and shall prescribe the time, place, and manner of holding said election, and if a majority of the taxable inhabitants shall determine in favor of the tax, it shall be the duty of said court to levy and collect from them a special tax, which shall be kept separate from all other funds and appropriated to no other purposes, and as fast as collected shall cause the same to be paid to the treasurer of said company
Held that the affirmative vote of the inhabitants of such a strip authorized the county court to levy, collect, and pay over to the treasurer of the company such special tax, but it did not create a debt of the county, as such, for which bonds might be issued under that act or the act of March 24, 1868, authorizing "counties, cities, and incorporated towns to fund their respective debts."
2. The Act of March 24, 1870, entitled "An Act to amend an act to facilitate the construction of railroads in the State of Missouri, approved March 23, 1868," granted no new power of subscription. The act of 1868 related entirely to municipal townships as such.
3. The court reaffirms its former rulings that the holder of a municipal bond is chargeable with notice of the statutory provisions under which it was issued.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.