Board of Com'rs v. Tome

Citations

• 153 F. 81
• 82 C.C.A. 215
• 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4380

Syllabus

<p>1. Judgment — Construction—Enforcement.</p> <p>Where judgments rendered on certain railroad aid bonds issued by a ■ township contained orders making it the duty, of the county commission- ■ ers of the county in which the township was located to annually levy a necessary tax to make the annual interest payments on the bonds, but such judgments did not direct the clerk to thereafter issue writs of mandamus if defaults should occur in the levy of the tax, they did not contain process within themselves for their own enforcement, so that, on the board’s default, it was necessary for the owner of the judgments to obtain orders of the court to compel performance.</p> <p>2. Same — Estoppel.</p> <p>Where judgments on certain township railroad aid bonds had become dormant by the lapse of three years, without process to enforce the same, and therefore required an order of court entered on notice to revive the judgments and authorize enforcement by mandamus, as provided by Revisal, N. C. 1905, § 620, the defendants on such an application were not estopped by the judgments to question the validity of the act under which the bonds were issued.</p> <p>3. Coubts — Federal Coubts — Following State Decision — Obligation op Contract — Impairment.</p> <p>Where certain township railroad aid bonds were issued under a state ' statute, and passed into the hands of non-resident holders for value at a time when the highest court of the state had rendered no decision . intimating that a provision of the Constitution of the state would be subsequently so construed as to invalidate the bond act, the federal courts sitting within such state were not bound by such a decision holding that the bond act was illegally passed, the effect of which was to impair the obligation of the contract existing between the township and the bond- . holders.</p> <p>LEd. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 13, Courts, §§ 950, ■ 957.</p> <p>Conclusiveness of judgment between federal and state courts, s