8 S.Ct. 66
123 U.S. 59
31 L.Ed. 74
TOWN OF DAYTON.
October 24, 1887.
Plaintiff sued the town of Dayton for payment of some railroad bonds issued by the town, under act of 1857, and worded as follows, claiming that they were payable under act of March 6, 1867, Priv. Laws Ill., the act of 1857 having been held invalid:
'The town of Dayton, in the county of La Salle, state of Illinois, acknowledges itself indebted in the sum of one thousand dollars, lawful money of the United States of America, which sum the said town of Dayton promises to pay to the Ottawa, Oswego & Fox River Valley Railroad Company, or to the bearer hereof, at the Fourth National Bank in the city of New York, four years from the first day of July, A. D. 1869, with interest from the first day of July, A. D. 1869, at the rate of ten per cent. per annum, payable annually at said bank upon the presentation and delivery of the several coupons hereto annexed as they respectively become due, and to the payment of said principal and interest in the manner aforesaid, the faith and revenue of said town, is hereby irrevocably pledged. This bond is one of a series of 12 bonds, bearing even date herewith, each for the sum of one thousand dollars, numbered from one to twelve, inclusive, and is issued in pursuance of an election or special town meeting held in said town on the seventeenth day of April, A. D. 1869, under and by virtue of a certain act of the legislature of the state of Illinois, approved February 18, 1857, entitled 'An act authorizing certain cities, counties, incorporated towns, and townships to subscribe to the stock of certain railroads,' the said act having special reference to the said Ottawa, Oswego, & Fox River Valley Railroad Company, at which election or special town meeting a majority of the legal voters participating at the same voted 'for subscription' to the capital stock of the Ottawa, Oswego & Fox River Valley Railroad Company in the sum of $12,000, and to issue the bonds of said town therefor, and the said election or special town meeting was by the proper authorities then and there declared duly carried 'for subscription,' previous application in writing of fifty legal voters of said town for such an election or special town meeting, specifying the amount to be subscribed, and the conditions of such subscription, having been made to the clerk of said town, and the said town clerk having called said election or special town meeting in accordance therewith, and having given due notice of the time and place of holding the same, as required by law and the act aforesaid.
'In witness whereof the supervisor and town clerk of said town have hereunto set their hands and seals this first day of May, A. D. 1869.
'WM. D. BROWN, Town Clerk. [Seal.]
'HENRY CURYEN, Supervisor.' [Seal.]
The defendant entered a demurrer, which was sustained. Plaintiff brings error.
Geo. A. Sanders, for plaintiff in error.
G. S. Eldredge, for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 60 intentionally omitted]
WAITE, C. J.
The judgment in this case is affirmed on the authority of Crow v. Oxford, 119 U. S. 215, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 180. See, also, Post v. Supervisors, 105 U. S. 667, 671. It appears on the face of the bonds sued for that the subscription was made under and by virtue of the act of February 18, 1857, and that the vote of the town was taken at a special town meeting called upon the 'application in writing of fifty legal voters of said town,' which is in accordance with the provisions of that act. The act of March 6, 1867, which the plaintiff now claims is sufficient to support the bonds, requires that the application for the town meeting shall be made by 'twenty voters and tax-payers.' The record does not show that any of those who signed the application for the meeting at which the vote was taken were taxpayers. It thus appears from the bonds themselves not only that they were issued under the act of 1857, but that they were not issued under that of 1867.