ROGERS
v.
KEOKUK
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A city issued bonds to finance railroad stock purchases, but questions arose regarding the legislature's authority to permit such municipal investment and whether defects in the bonds' issuance were cured by subsequent legalization legislation. The Supreme Court held that the legislature had constitutional power to authorize municipalities to subscribe for railroad stock and issue bonds for that purpose, and that a subsequent state law legalizing such bonds validated them despite any irregularities in their issuance, with a good-faith purchaser for value taking free of any defects.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice, Grier delivered the opinion of the court.
It might be objected to the certificate of division of opinion in this case, that it is a submission of the whole case, first in separate propositions, and afterwards in a point containing all the rest, When the case was tried below, the questions on which it depends had not been decided by this court, and were considered doubtful, having received in the courts of Iowa contrary solutions. But having since that time been decided in this court in other cases involving the same questions, we need only refer to them as containing answers to all the questions necessary to the decision of this case.
Mr. F. A. Dick for plaintiff.
No appearance for defendant.
The case of Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175, 202, will afford an answer to the first, which is the most important question submitted, to wit: “ That the legislature of the State of Iowa had the power to authorize the said municipal corporation, the. city of Keokuk, to subscribe for and take stock in a railroad company and to issue its bonds in payment therefor, and to lay a tax to pay the interest upon said bonds.”
It is not necessary to vindicate the correctness of this decision by further argument.
2. The legislature, having such authority, the “act legalizing the issue of county, city, and town corporation bonds in the counties of Lee and Davis ” gave validity to said bonds notwithstanding any informality or illegality in their issuing. This is a sufficient answer to the second and third questions proposed.
3. The plaintiff having purchased the bonds in open market, for value, is not charged with any defect or irregularity in their issue.
' The fifth and sixth questions proposed each include all that is presented, and need not be answered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weinberger v. The Bd. of Pub. Instruction of St. Johns Cnty., 93 Fla. 470 (Fla. 1927)…la. 249, 102 South. 739, 37 A. L. R. 1298. Statutes validating governmental bond issues may cure statutory or administrative procedural defects (Givens v. Hillsborough County, 46 Fla. 502, 35 South. Rep. 88; Rogers v. City of Keokuk, 154 U. S. 546, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1162; Grenada County Sup’rs v. Brogden, 112 U. S. 261, 5 Ct. Rep. 125; 15 C. J. 627; Charlotte Harbor & N. R. Co. v. Welles, 260 U. S. 8, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 3); and statutory judicial proceedings validating bond issues may, if so provided by statute or val…
-
Sparks v. Ewing, 120 Fla. 520 (Fla. 1935)…So. 739, 37 A. L. R. 1298. “Statutes validating governmental bond issues may cure statutory or administrative procedural defects (Givens v. Hillsborough County, 46 Fla. 502, 35 So. 88, 110 Am. St. Rep. 104; Rogers v. City of Keokuk, 154 U. S. 546, 14 S. Ct. 1162, 18 L. Ed. 74; Grenada County Sup’rs v. Brogden, 112 U. S. 261, 5 S. Ct. 125, 28 L. Ed. 704; 15 C. J. 627; Charlotte Harbor & N. R. Co. v. Welles, 260 U. S. 8, 43 S. Ct. 3, 67 L. Ed. 100) ; and statutory judicial proceedings validating bond issues m…1 / 2
-
City OF Hialeah v. United States ex rel. Harris, 87 F.2d 953 (5th Cir. 1937)…The mandamus to enforce the judgment is only a form of execution resorted to because the usual process is unavailable. Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Wall. 166, 18 L. Ed. 768; Memphis v. Brown, 97 U.S. 300, 24 L.Ed. 924; Rogers v. Keokuk, 154 U.S. 546, 14 S.Ct. 1162, 18 L.Ed. 74. It may not serve to review the judgment, which has all the qualities of res judicata. Santa Fe County Com’rs v. New Mexico ex rel. Coler, 215 U.S. 296, 30 S.Ct. Ill, 54 L. Ed. 202; Chanute City v. Trader, 132 U.S. 210, 211, 214, 10 S.…
Authorities Cited
- Gelpcke v. The City of Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175 (U.S. 1863)