ROGERS v. KEOKUK

ROGERS v. KEOKUK. CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION IN OPINION FROM TIIE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF IOWA. No. 94. Submitted January 4, 1866. Decided January 22, 1866. The legislature of Iowa had power to authorize the city of Keokuk to subscribe for and take stock in a railway company, to issue its bonds therefor and to lay a tax to pay the interest thereon. It had also power to give validity to bonds informally issued for such purpose. A plaintiff who purchases such bonds in the open market is not chargeable with defects or irregularities in their issue. The ease is stated in the opinion. [MAJORITY — Mr. Justice, Grier] 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.