SHEBOYGAN CO.
v.
PARKER
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.
Sheboygan County challenged the constitutionality of a Wisconsin statute authorizing the county to issue bonds to fund railroad stock subscriptions after voter approval, arguing that county supervisors lacked authority to bind the county without special legislative authorization. The Supreme Court upheld the statute, holding that when the legislature grants specific authority to the people of a county through a referendum to issue bonds for a particular purpose, the designated agents acting with voter consent perform a ministerial duty that binds the county, even though those agents are not traditional county officers exercising governmental functions.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court. It is admitted that the bonds in question were issued in conformity with the statute of the Wisconsin legislature. By this statute, the bonds issued in pursuance of it are made “ full and complete evidence, both in law and equity, to establish the indebtedness of the county according to their tenor and effect.”
The objection is, that the act is unconstitutional and void. Is the objection well founded?
The commissioners or board of supervisors of a county, in the exercise of their general powers as such, have no authority to subscribe stock to railroads, and bind the people of the county to pay bonds issued for that purpose without special authority conferred upon them by the legislature. But when special authority is given to the people of a county to do these acts, and bind themselves by the issue of such bonds, the legislature may properly direct the mode in which it shall be effected. The persons specially appointed to act as agents for the people have a ministerial duty to perform in issuing the bonds, after the people, at an election held for the purpose, have assented that they shall be bound.
Such persons, in performance of their special duty, are in no proper sense, “ county officers.” They do not exercise any of the political functions of county officers, such as levying taxes, &c. They do not exercise “ continuously, and as a part of the regular and permanent administration of the government, any important public powers, trusts, or duties.”*
An officer of the county is one by whom the county performs its usual political functions; its functions of government. Any other persons appointed by the legislature and the people of the county, would be as competent to execute the bonds of the corporation as the supervisors. They are the lawful agents of the people for this special purpose, and though nominated by.the legislature, they cannot act without the assent of the citizens of the county, ascertained in the manner directed by law; and, having so acted, the county cannot now repudiate their acts. '
Judgment aeeirmed, with costs.
*
State v. Kennon, 7 Ohio, 562.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Provident Life & Tr. Co. v. Mercer Cnty., 170 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1898)…it authority to execute negotiable bonds except subject to the restrictions and conditions of the enabling act, are propositions so well settled by frequent decisions of this-court that we need not pause to consider them. Sheboygan County v. Parker, 3 Wall. 93, 96; Wells v. Supervisors, 102 U. S. 625 ; Claiborne County v. Brooks, 111 U. S. 400; Young v. Clarendon Township, 132 U. S. 340, 346.” At thesametime when the good faith of all the parties is unquestionable the courts will lean to that constructio…
-
Young v. Clarendon Twp., 132 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1889)…d decided in strict conformity with its terms. It is an enabling act, conferring a power not before existent, and any departure from its requirements cannot be allowed. Harshman v. Bates County, 92 U. S. 569. In the case of Sheboygan Co. v. Parker, 3 Wall. 93, 96, this court said: “ The commissioners or board of supervisors of a county, in the exercise of their general powers as such, have no-authority to subscribe stock to railroads,, and bind the people of the county to. pay bonds issued for that, pur…
-
Barnum v. Okolona, 148 U.S. 393 (U.S. 1893)…t authority, to execute negotiable bonds except subject to the restrictions and conditions of the enabling act, are propositions so well settled by frequent decisions of this court that we need not pause to consider them. Sheboygan County v. Parker, 3 Wall. 93, 96; Wells v. Supervisors, 102 U. S. 625;. Claiborne County v. Brooks, 111 U. S. 400; Young v. Clarendon Township, 132 U. S. 340, 346. Accordingly if, in the present instance, the legislature of Mississippi, in authorizing the town of Okolona to .s…