Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/309

 PART III.] ACTS BEYOND THE CORPORATE POWERS. [§ 319. municipal bonds held by an innocent holder comes before the Supreme Court of the United States, that court in its discre- tion may disregard the decisions of a state court, although they involve the construction of a statute of the state, if those decisions are not deemed satisfactory. Such a question be- longs to the domain of general jurisprudence, and the Federal courts will not be controlled by state decisions. 1 § 319. A municipal corporation has, of course, no implied or inherent power to issue bonds in aid of railroad _ enterprises, 2 nor any implied power to utter commer- ity has no cial paper of any kind. 3 State legislatures, however, power to unless prohibited by some constitutional provision, ^f^jd " may authorize a town or county to aid in the con- Con- struction of a railroad by subscribing for shares in the stock of a railroad corporation and issuing bonds in payment there- for, or by issuing its bonds as a simple gift to the corporation. 4 1 Township of Pine Grove o. Tal- cott, 19 Wall. 666; Town of Venice o. Murdock, 92 U. S. 494; see Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1; Oates v. Nation- al Bank, 100 U. S. 239; Railroad Co. o. National Bank, 102 U. S. 14; Pana v. Bowler, 107 U. S. 529; Carroll County v. Smith, 111 U. S. 506. See, also, § 468. 2 Kenicott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 452; Thomson v. Lee County, 3 Wall. 327; Barnum v. Okolona, 148 U. S. 393; Provident Trust Co. v. Mercer County, 170 U. S. 593; Hancock v. Chicot County, 32 Ark. 575; see City of Lynchburg v. Slaughter, 75 Va. 57. Compare Bell v. Railroad Co., 4 Wall. 598. An injunction lies to restrain an issue of bonds where there has been a material departure from the stat- ute. Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. Lincoln Co., 3 Dillon, 300; City of Madison v. Smith, 83 Iud. 502. See Noesen v. Town of Port Washington, 37 Wis. 168; and compare Rogers v. Burling- ton, 3 Wall. 654, 667. A taxpayer has a standing in court to maintain nessee & P. R. R. Co., 1 Bax. (Tenn.) 82. But bonds of a municipal corpo- ration which are void in the hands of an innocent holder are no charge against the public, and a taxpayer has no right to enjoin their circula- tion. McCoy v. Briant, 53 Cal. 247. 3 Claiborne County v. Brooks, 111 U. S. 400. 4 Thomson v. Lee County, 3 Wall. 327; Railroad Co. v. County of Otoe, 16 Wall. 667; Town of Queensbury v. Culver, 19 Wall. 83; Clarke v. City of Rochester, 28 N. T. 605 ; Davidson o. County Commissioners, 18 Minn. 482; Chicago, Danville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Smith, 62 111. 268; Leaven- worth County c Miller, 7 Kan. 479 ( in which last case a full review of au- thorities is given); Stockton, etc.,R. R. Co. v. City of Stockton, 41 Cal. 147; Petty v. Myers, 49 Ind. 1; Leav- enworth, etc., R. R. Co. v. Douglass County, 18 Kan. 169; New Orleans, etc., R. R. Co. v. McDonald, 53 Miss. 240. See Township of Pine Grove o. Talcott, 19 Wall. 666, 677; Dillon on Municipal Corps., 3d ed. § 153. note. such an injunction, Winston v. Ten- 1 Compare City of Ottawa r. Carey, 19 289