Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/327

 PART in.] ACTS BEYOND THE CORPORATE POWERS. [§ 334. duly obtained against a county on its bonds or coupons, no de- fence questioning their validity can be pleaded to a mandamus. 1 Conversely, when in an action for a mandamus a judgment is rendered against the relator on the ground that the bonds are invalid, that judgment is conclusive of their invalidity as against the vendee of the relator who purchases the bonds after ma- turity. 2 If a municipality by the statute authorizing the issue of bonds receives power to levy taxes to a certain amount, the implication arises that the legislature did not intend to authorize taxation beyond that amount, and a court has no power by mandamus to compel a municipal corporation to levy a tax un- authorized by law ; nor to compel it to levy a larger tax than is authorized expressly or by implication. 3 A mandamus can only enforce existing laws ; it confers no new power on those to whom it issues. 4 § 334. Property held for public uses, such as public build- ings, squares, parks, promenades, wharves, landing. . places, fire-engines, hose and hose-carriages, engine- property- houses, engineering instruments, and generally every- ffonfexe- thing held for governmental purposes, cannot be sub- cutlon - 1 Ralls County Court v. United States, 105 U. S. 733. Compare State v. Mayor of Manitowoc, 52 Wis. 423. A county subscribed for the stock of a railroad corporation, and issued bonds in payment therefor pursuant to a law that authorized the levy of a special tax to pay them, " not to exceed one-twentieth of one per cent, upon the assessed value of tax- able property for each year," but which contained no provision that only the fund so derived should be applied to their payment. Held, that the bonds were debts of the county as fully as any other of its liabilities, and that for any balance remaining due on account of princi- pal or interest after the application thereto of the proceeds of such tax, the holders were entitled to pay- ment out of the general funds of the county. United States v. County of Clark, 96 U. S. 211; Knox County v. United States, 109 U. S. 229. Com- pare East St. Louis v. Zebley, 110 U. S. 321. Contra, State v. Macon County, 68 Mo. 28. When the re- lator has obtained judgment on county bonds issued in aid of a rail- road, and his only means of obtain- ing satisfaction is through the levy of a tax, a mandamus from a Federal court to the county officers directing them to levy a tax to pay the interest on the bonds, can in no way be con- trolled by an injunction from a state court enjoining a levy. Supervisors v. Durant, 9 Wall. 415; Hawley v. Fairbanks, 108 U. S. 543. 2 Louis v. Brown Township, 109 U. S. 162. 3 United States v. County of Ma- con, 99 U. S. 582. See Quincy v. Jackson, 113 U. S. 332, 338. 4 United States v. County of Clark, 96 U.S. 769. 307