Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/800

786 FEDERAL REPORTER, �, Nelson, D. J. These cases are tried together without a jury. The only matters relied on in defence are: �First. That the provisions of chapter 106, Gen. Laws Minnesota 1877, and particularly of section 7, under which the bonds and coupons issued, were unconstitutional and void. �Seœnd. That the decision of the supreme court of Minnesota in the case of Harrington v. The Plainview Railroaa Go. is conclusive and binding in respect to the first point upon the federal courts, aa an exposition and con- struction of the constitution of the state of Minnesota. �The view taken by the court will render it necessary to consider only the second defence urged. The folio wing propositions must control the decision : �First. The recitals in the bonds are conclusive evidence in favor of the plaintiiEs, who purchased without other information than that which appears upoii their face, that all the conditions precedent prescribed in the law had been complied with. ; �Second. If the law under which the bonds issued had been sustained and recognized as valid by the highest court of the state at the time, no subsefiuent act of the judiciary can impair their validity in the hands pf the plaintiffs. �The bonds on their face refer to the law under which power to issue them was given by the legislature, and the coupons, though detached, are described with suflucient certainty in the oonrplaint, and the evi- dence isplain that they belonged to the bonds issued. If the bonds are valid obligations, the coupons are identified and follow the bondjl; so that, if the second proposition can be applied, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover. �In State ex rel. v. Town of Highland, 25 Minn. 355, a case arose under the act of 1877, and section 7 was beforethe supreme court of the state. Proceedings for a mandamus to cbmpel the town of High- land to comply with the mutvial agreement entered into as prescribed by this section were instituted, and, on motion to quaah the alterna- tive writ which had. issued, the respondent's counsel presented and urged, in a written brief, among other things the following, as, appears by the records on file, but not given in the report of the case, viz. : �'■'■Fourth. Because the act of 1877, c. 106, in so far as it attempts to em- power a majority of the tax-payers of a town, by means of a petition, to enter into and bind the town by agreement, is unconstitutional and void." �The court, in its decision, after citing the principal provisions of the act, say : �" We think the following propositions clearly deducible: First. The statuts authorizes a town to aid the construction of railroads. It does not authorii'o aid to roads already constructed. The idea of the law-maker unqiiestionably was to authorize aid to be given to rouds which were believe;! to require aid ��� �