Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/315

 PART III.] ACTS BEYOND THE CORPORATE POWERS. [§ 325. § 324. It may be questioned whether the case last referred to, Harshman v. Bates County, would be followed now by the Supreme Court ; for that court has since held in more than one instance, that when a municipal corporation is authorized to issue its bonds to a railroad company, the consolidation of that company with another does not destroy the power of the county to issue its bonds nor the right of the railroad company to re- ceive them. 1 And bonds voted in aid of one company, which under the law then in force was subsequently consolidated with another, may be delivered to the consolidated company. 2 § 325. Municipal bonds, invalid in their inception, may be validated by legislative sanction or even recognition. 3 For, in the absence of constitutional restrictions, a bond^may legislature may competently validate, by retro- ^atld 11 " spective statutes, an irregular or defective execution of a power by a municipal or other public corporation. 4 More- U. S. 569. See Wagner v. Meety, 69 Mo. 150. 1 Menasha ». Hazard, 102 IT. S. 81 ; County of Scotland v. Thomas, 94 U. S. 682; Town of East Lincoln v. Davenport, 94 U. S. 801 ; County of Henry v. Nicolay, 95 U. S. 619; Liv- ingston County v. Portsmouth Bank, 128 U. S. 102, substantially disap- proving Harshman v. Bates County. See County of Cass v. Gillett, 100 U.S. 585; County of Schuyler v. Thomas, 98 U. S. 169; Wilson v. Sala- manca, 99 U. S. 499; County of Tip- ton v. Locomotive Works, 103 U. S. 523; Harter v. Kernochan, 103 U. S. 562; Scott v. Hansheer, 94 Ind. 1; Edwards v. People, 88 111. 340, and § 536. 2 New Buffalo v. Iron Company, 105 U. S. 73; Chickaming v. Carpen- ter, 106 U. S. 663; Nugent v. Super- visors, 19 Wall. 241; Bates County » Winters, 112 U. S. 325; Niantic Sav- ings Bank v. Town of Douglas, 5 111. App. 579. 3 Grenada County Supervisors v. Brogden, 112 U. S. 261; Campbell v. City of Kenosha, 5 Wall. 194; Utter v. Franklin, 172 U. S. 416. S. 1; Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175, 203; Tifft v. City of Buffalo, 82 N. Y. 204; Keithburgu. Frick, 34 111. 405; Copes v. Charleston, 10 Rich. L. (S. C.) 491; McMillen v. Boyles, 6 Iowa, 304; McMillen v. Judge of Lee County, ib. 391; Bass v. City of Co- lumbus, 30 Ga. 845; Steines v. Frank- lin County, 48 Mo. 167; Knapp v. Grant, 27 Wis. 147 ; Town of Duanes- burg ». Jenkins, 57 N. Y. 177. Com- pare White Mountains R. R. Co. v. White Mountains R. R., 50 N. H. 50; Gross v. United States Mortgage Co., 108 U. S. 477; Alexander v. Commis- sioners of McDowell County, 70 N. C. 208; Single v. Supervisors, 38 Wis. 363. But see Cairo and St. L. R. R. Co. v. City of Sparta, 77 111. 505. But a legislature cannot validate municipal bonds by a statute passed after a constitutional amendment has forbidden the legislature to au- thorize municipal bonds. Katzen- berger v. Aberdeen, 121 U. S. 172. 295
 * Otoe County v. Baldwin, 111 U.