Lumbard v. Stearns, 2d......... Louisville and Nashville R. R. Co. v. Davidson County, 2d.... Mayor, &c., of Camden, M. O. and R. R. R. Co. v............................ Mobile and Great Northern R. R. Co., Gibbons v....... M. O. and R. R. R. Co. v. Mayor, &c., of Camden......................................................... Perkins et al. Commissioners of Alleghany County, Commonwealth ex rel. Armstrong v., 2d....... People v. Coon et al......... People v. Supervisors of San Francisco....... Powers v. Inferior Court of Dougherty County.. Rice v. Foster...... Rogers v. Burlington......... PAGE 400 392 218 45 386 205 166 258 368 352 43 91 288 418 400 27 91 29 341 95 106 258 209 356 Robinson v. Board of Supervisors of Butler County, California, 2d.... 425 Scoggin et al., Parker et al. v., 2d................. 29 Sharpless and Others v. Mayor, &c., of Philadelphia...... 288 Shaw v. Dennis......... 29 Shelby R. R., County Judge of Shelby County v..................................... Smead, The State, &c., v., 2d.... 216 Smith, The Chicago, Danville, and Vincennes R. R. Co. v.... Stien v. The Mayor, Aldermen, &c., of Mobile................. Stockton and Visalia R. R. Co. v. Common Council of the City of Supervisors of Polk County, Stewart v......... Supervisors of San Francisco, People v.............................................................. Talbot v. Dent....... Taylor v. Commissioners of Newberne, 2d........ The Board of Commissioners of Leavenworth v. Miller...... The Councils of Pittsburg, The Commonwealth et al. Reinboth v..... 335 124 364 106 55 459 178 418 303 262 195 340 The Floyd Acceptance, 2d..... 147 The L. M. and B. R. R. Co. et al. v. Geiger... 325 The Mayor, Aldermen, &c., of Mobile, Stien v..................................................................................... 52 65 The St. Joseph and Denver City R. R. Co. v. Buchanan County Court, 2d 127 The Parish of Ouachita, Vicksburg, Shreveport, and Texas R. R. Co. v., 2d............ 21 The State, &c., v. Goshen, 2d......... The State, &c., v. Smead, 2d.......................... PAGE 218 216 The State ex rel. Treadwell v. Commissioners of Hancock County, 2d. 240 The State of Ohio ex rel. Garrett v. Van Horne, 2d... Van Horne, The State of Ohio ex rel. Garrett v., 2d... Vicksburg, Shreveport, and Texas R. R. Co. v. The Parish of Ouachita, 2d.... Walker v. City of Cincinnati... West, City of Aurora v., 9 Ind... West, City of Aurora v., 22 Ind.. Williams, Swan v., 2d....... Winn v. City Council of Macon.... Winter, The Mayor and Aldermen of Wetumpka v.. Wright, Antoni v.... 236 236 21 244 314 343 55 253 65 430 THE LAW OF MUNICIPAL BONDS. CHAPTER I. THE LAW OF MUNICIPAL BONDS. THE advantage and demand for the use of commercial paper, in transacting the commercial business of the world, has made the Law-Merchant a fixed rule determining the liabilities and rights, of each and all parties, under and by virtue of known precedents. These have been handed down to us through ages wherein wisdom, experience, and learning, have passed them into custom and maxims, and they have become as organic law, because of their adaptation, to the spirit and genius of commercial business and the paramount necessity for their observance by all classes. And with the advance and increase of commercial intercourse, many of the States have passed laws making warehouse and shipping receipts, subject to the LawMerchant; while with the progress of science and the demand for rapid transit, we have a large amount of Municipal Bonds issued in aid of public improvements, representing a very considerable portion of our money value in this form of securities. These bonds pass by delivery. The rights of the respective parties and the legal rights are adjudicated, on the same principle as commercial paper under the Law Merchant, differing only, as to the right, to sign, seal, and issue; the payor, being, the right of taxation. The right of the sovereign, to subject the property within a certain territorial district, to an assessment, that will protect and discharge the obligation, for which the bond was given, in accordance, with the terms of the contract between the parties. This applies, to wherever legislative power may reside. And, as the right of eminent domain, belongs to the sovereign power, as well as the right of taxation, it may be called the right of eminent domain exercised over a territorial division, to the extent of the assessment. The law of commercial paper, will apply to Municipal Bonds, to the extent of the bona fides of the holder, for value, the consideration, and issue. And as the payor is part of the political division of a State, and represented by the officials, without any personal interest, questions arise as to the authority, of such officials to create the obligation, and make it a valid one. It is valid, if there was authority to issue, and void, if issued without authority, the authority being the sovereign power, whether delegated or reserved, wherein, the requirements for the protection of all are observed, within the objects, for which municipalities are created. Much discussion has taken place, touching, the distinction, between eminent domain, and the right of taxation. These rights, with which every Government, is necessarily invested, rest upon the same foundation, and are, in many respects alike, while in others they are very clearly distinguishable. They are both rights which the people collectively, either expressly or impliedly, retain over the property of individuals, to take as much as may be necessary, to enable Government to accomplish its lawful purposes. And the remarks of Chief-Justice MARSHALL in Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Peters R., 514, are equally applicable to both, |