Town of Queensbury v. Culver/Opinion of the Court

In view of the numerous decisions made by the highest courts of most of the States, including New York, as also of those made by this court, it ought to be considered as settled that a State legislature may authorize a municipal corporation to aid in the construction of a railroad, in the absence of any express constitutional prohibition of such legislative action. There is no such prohibition to be found in the constitution of New York, and the courts of that State have many times held that the legislature has power to authorize cities and towns to subscribe for stock of a railroad corporation, to incur indebtedness for the subscription, and to impose taxes for the payment of the debt incurred. It is true no case in the highest court of that State has determined the precise question now presented, namely, whether a municipal corporation may be empowered to donate its bonds to a railroad company and collect taxes for the payment of the bonds. But subscriptions for stock, equally with donations, are outside of the ordinary purposes of such corporations, and the design of both is the same. It is to aid in the construction or maintenance of a public highway. It is for the promotion of a public use. The inducement to a subscription may be greater than the inducement to a donation. In the one case there may be a hope of reimbursement by the stock obtained; in the other there can be no such expectation. In both, however, the warrant for the exercise of the power is the same. It may be that a mandatory statute requiring a municipal corporation to subscribe for stock in a railroad company, or to contribute to the construction of the railroad of such a company is not a legitimate exercise of legislative power, and that it is not even an act of legislation. This was decided by the Court of Appeals of New York in the case of The People ex rel. v. Bacheler. But the present is no such case. The legislative act by which the town of Queensbury was authorized to issue bonds in aid of the railroad from the village of Glenn's Falls to intersect with the Saratoga and Whitehall Railroad was not mandatory. It was merely enabling. It authorized the issue and donation of the bonds, if approved by a popular vote. It was a mere grant of power upon conditions, coupled with a prescription of the mode in which the power granted might be exercised. And that it was a constitutional exertion of legislative power must be considered as settled affirmatively by the decisions of this court in Railroad Company v. The County of Otoe, and Olcott v. The Supervisors of Fond du Lac County. It cannot, therefore, be maintained, as contended by the plaintiff in error, that the statute under which the coupons in suit were issued was transgressive of the power vested in the legislature. If the Court of Appeals of New York had decided otherwise we should feel constrained to follow its decision, but no such determination has been made.

It is next insisted that, even if the statute under which the bonds were issued be valid, an action of assumpsit cannot be brought to recover the sums due on the coupons. The reasons given in support of this proposition are that the coupons do not purport to be, and that they were not, made in the name of the town; and that the town is not liable to an action at law for the failure to pay the instruments made and issued by the commissioners designated by the statute. Neither of these reasons is well founded. The bonds to which the coupons were attached do purport to bind the town. They acknowledge that the town of Queensbury is indebted to the bearer or his assigns in the sum mentioned, for value received in money borrowed, payable on the 6th day of February, 1878, 'with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent., on presentation and delivery of the coupons for the same, thereto attached.' They are signed by the commissioners who were by the statute made agents of the town for issuing them, and they are countersigned by the clerk of the town of Queensbury. The coupons attached are all headed 'Town of Queensbury Interest Warrant.' They are in the form of orders drawn upon a bank, but signed by the commissioners as commissioners and attested by the town clerk. Very plainly, therefore, both the bonds and the interest warrants are evidence of indebtedness by the town. They appear to have been issued in strict compliance with all the requisitions of the statute. It is vain to say the statute imposed no duty upon the town or its officers. No one can doubt that it is competent for the legislature to determine by what agents a municipal corporation shall exert its powers. The statute in question did designate the agents, and their acts, within the authority conferred, are binding upon their principal, upon the town of which they had been constituted the agents.

Equally untenable is the position that an action at law is not maintainable, because the holders of the bonds and coupons are entitled only to that remedy for a default of payment which is provided by the statute. There are cases, it is true, which hold that where a statute creates a right and enjoins a duty, nothing may be done agreeably to the provisions of the common law to enforce the duty or assert the right further than is necessary to give effect to the statute. But we do not perceive that this principle has any bearing upon the present case. The fourth section of the act requires the commissioners designated as the agents of the town to report, annually, to the board of supervisors of the county, the amount required to pay the principal and interest on the bonds authorized to be issued, and makes it the duty of the supervisors to assess, levy, and collect of the real and personal property of the town of Queensbury, such sum or sums of money as shall have been reported to them by the commissioners. The money thus collected the supervisors are required to pay to the commissioners, to be applied by them to the payment of the bonds and interest. These are all directions given to the town and county officers and agents-not to the holders of the bonds and coupons. They prescribe duties to be performed after the amount of the debt due by the town has been ascertained, either by agreement or by judgment. That amount may be contested. It has been in this case. It could only be determined by an action at law. Only after such a determination could the commissioners report how much was required to be levied by taxation. The action, then, does not take the place of any remedy provided by the legislature. At most, it is a step to give effect to the statutory provision.

The only other error assigned which requires notice is, that the court refused to direct a verdict for the defendants because the bonds were not disposed of by the commissioners at not less than par, because no money was received for them by the commissioners, and because they were delivered directly to the railroad company. But a delivery to the railroad company was plainly authorized by the act of the legislature. True, the commissioners were not at liberty to dispose of them for less than their par value, and they did not. Had they done so, and had the plaintiff not been a holder-without notice and for a valuable consideration-there might have been a defence to the action. The third section, however, empowered the commissioners to 'dispose of the bonds to such persons or corporation as they should deem most advantageous for the town, but not for less than par.' And it required them not to pay over 'any money or bonds' to the railroad corporation until certain satisfactory assurances should be furnished them. Thus it appears that delivery of the bonds to the railroad company was contemplated and authorized.

There is, therefore, no error in the record, and the judgment is

AFFIRMED.