Sinking Fund Com'rs v. Northern Bank Ky.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 36 — PETITION EQUITY ArPEAI. FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. 1. That no action can be sustained against the sinking fund. First.
Read the full summary
CASE 36 — PETITION EQUITY ArPEAI. FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. 1. That no action can be sustained against the sinking fund. First. It is in effect an action against the state, (Gorn’rs of the Sinking Fund vs. Theobald, 17 B. Mon., 459; Devine vs. Harvie, 7 Mon., 441,) and the effect of the judgment is to intercept and take away two of the sources of supply for the sinking fund dedicated to the payment of the interest and principal of the public debt. Second. That such an appropriation of the moneys of the sinking fund, not only is against the…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE SIMPSON
delivered the opinion op the court:
The legislature of Kentucky, by an act approved February 3d, 1833, authorized the Lexington and Ohio railroad company to borrow one hundred and fifty thousand dollars upon bonds to be issued by the company and indorsed by the state, upon the condition, however, that the company would, as an indemnity to the state, mortgage to it all its property, rights, privileges, &c.,with power to sell the same in default of payment of either principal or interest. The sale was to be made by the auditor of public accounts, who was also authorized to purchase…
2Cited by36 opinions
- Gabriel v. BorowyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
- Danforth v. ChandlerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- Stewart v. JoyceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Bartlett v. TuckerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Gross v. Kentucky Board of ManagersCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1899
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.