County of Knox v. Aspinwall

THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Indiana.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

It was argued by Mr. Reverdy Johnson and Mr. R. W. Thompson for the plaintiffs in error, on which side there was also a brief by Mr. McDonald and Mr. Porter, and for the defendants in error by Mr. Benjamin and Mr. Vinton, on which side there was also a brief by Mr. Judah.

Upon the trial in the court below, the general issue and five special pleas were filed. These pleas alleged the want of a previous legal notice; that there ought to have been a notice of the intention of the board to raise the subscription from $100,000 to $200,000; that there was no record of the judgment of the board; that the bonds were issued all at the same time, and not at the rate of one-fifth per year, as the statute required; and that the contract was in violation of the sixth section of the tenth article of the Constitution of Indiana, which took effect on the 1st of November, 1851.

To these pleas there was a demurrer, which was sustained by the Circuit Court.

The counsel for the plaintiffs in error contended that the demurrer admitted these facts; that the bill of exceptions contained also prayers to the court, which were refused, and instructions given to the jury, upon both points of which there was error; that corporations could not go beyond their powers, and of course the board could only bind itself according to law; that the plaintiffs were bound to inquire into this; that the notice was only published three times in a weekly newspaper; that it was the policy of the board to keep back the notice as long as possible; that the law did not authorize the issue of coupons, because it said that interest should be paid to the holder of the bond.

The counsel for the defendants in error contended that the act must be liberally construed for the objects set forth, as the act itself directed should be done; that bonds were usually issued with coupons, and were authorized by the statutes of Indiana; that the validity of the election might have been tested by any elector interested, (Revised Statutes of 1843, p. 140 to 142;) that no proceeding can now be had to call it in question; that a purchaser had a right to presume that those whom the law intrusted with the duty complied with all the preliminary acts which it enjoined on them, and that it was not necessary to produce the bonds in court.

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.