Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/398

 884 FEDEBAIi BEPOBTEB. . �tember, 1877, and the demarrer again sustained. An appeal from the decision was taken in the spring of 1878, to ths snpreme court, and the case is now pending in that court; so that, unless the statute of April 1, 1865, legalizing the pro- ceedings of the several town meetings in St. Clair county, changes the aspect of this oase, the question will appear to be res adjudicata in this court ; and suoh I believe to be the fact, as I cannot see that the last-named statute helps the plaintiff's case. �It seems clearfrom the title of the statute, as well as from the provisions of sections 1 and 2, that the purpose is not to levy a tax upon the county or to make a contract for the county, but to simply cure the supposed defects and irregu- larities in the holding of the several town meetings, under the law, and in the canvassing of the votes thereat, so as to put the supervisors in the same condition of authority, in regard to the issuing of bonds to the extent of $25,000, that they would bave been in if the said town meeting had been legally held and the votes properly canvassed. To give the act a larger meaning would be doing violence to the language of the title as well as that of the body of the act itself. �I think the case of Aspenwall et al. v. Com'rs of the County ofDaviess, 22 How. 364, is an authority in point on the main question raised by this demurrer. In one important respect that case was a stronger one for the plaintiff than this. The bonds had been actually isaued and sold by the company to parties who had no notice of their invalidity. It is stronger in another respect, that the law in that case made it the duty of the board of commissioners to subscribe for the stock, if a majority of the qualified voters determined in favor of the sub- scription. And yet the court in that case, on page 378, say : "It is insisted that the contract of subscription became com- plete when, at the election, a majority of the votes was castin its favor, and did not require the form of a subscription on the books for the stock of the railroad company to make it obligatory upon the parties. • • ♦ But the court is unable to con- cur in this view. It holds that a subscription was necessary to create a contract binding upon the county, on one side, to ����