Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/799

 MABSHAL V. TOWN OF KLQIN. 786 �therefor signed by a majority of the resident tax-payers of said town, said agreement having beau fully performed by the said railroad company on ita part. �♦' This bond is issued in pursuance of the anthority given for that purpose by the laws of the state of Minnesota, and in compliance with a resolution of the board of supervisors of said town." �In the case of the town of Plainview, at or about the time the rail- road company had complied on its part with the mutual agreement, one George Harrington, a tax-payer of that town, brought an action, in the district court of the state, against the town ofiScers and the Plain- view Eailroad Company to restrain the town offieers from executing and delivering the bonds as stipulated, for the alleged reason that the act under which they were issued, (section 7, c. 106, Laws of Minnesota for 1877,) which provides for arriving at a mutual agreement betweenthe railroad company and the town by proposition and petition of a major- ity of the resident tax-payers, was unconstitutional and voidi A tempo- rary injunction was issued to restrain the execution and delivery of the bonds. The cause was tried Jannary 27, 1879, upon stipulated facts, and among other things it was admitted at the trial — �"That, relying on and induced and influenced by the proceedings set eut, and particularly by the resolution of the board of supervisors, the Plainview Eailroad CJompany constructed and had, before the commencement of that action, its Une of road constructed, and has had the same graded and the ties and iron laid thereon, with the cars running thereon from a point of junction with the Winona & St. Peter Railroad, in the county of Olmsted, east of the west line of Eyota, in said county, to a point within the corporate limits of the village of IPlainview, as the same existed December 31, 1877, and had, in all respects, complied with the terms and conditions specifled in the proposi- tion by it to be performed." �The district court held the act valid, and found for the defendants. A motion for a new trial, made by the plaintiff, was denied Mareh 11, 1879, and he appealed from such deniai to the supreme court of Minnesota on the next day. Three days afterwards judgment was entered by the district court dissolving the injunction and dismissing the action, and on the next day the town issued the bonds in question. On the sixth of October, 1880, the supreme court of Minnesota, hav- ing heard the appeal, decided that the act under which the bonds were issued (ohapter 106, § 7, Laws 1877,) was unconstitutional and void. �S. V. Pinney and Tkos. Wilson, for plaintiffs. �Gordon E, Cole and Bobt. Taylor, for defendants. v.S.no.ll — 50 ��� �