Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 81 (1864)
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Number: 81
Visitors: 7
Judges: Swayne, After Stating the Difference Between the Case and No. 80, and Quoting This Act, Thus
Filed: Jan. 11, 1864
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 68 U.S. 220 (_) 1 Wall. 220 GELPCKE ET AL. v. THE CITY OF DUBUQUE. No. 81. Supreme Court of United States. *221 Mr. JUSTICE SWAYNE, after stating the difference between the case and No. 80, and quoting this act, thus delivered the opinion of the court: "In this act it is clearly implied that cities have authority to subscribe for railroad stock, and to issue their bonds in payment of it. What is implied in a statute is as much a part of it as what is expressed. (United States v. Babbitt, 1 Black
Summary: 68 U.S. 220 (_) 1 Wall. 220 GELPCKE ET AL. v. THE CITY OF DUBUQUE. No. 81. Supreme Court of United States. *221 Mr. JUSTICE SWAYNE, after stating the difference between the case and No. 80, and quoting this act, thus delivered the opinion of the court: "In this act it is clearly implied that cities have authority to subscribe for railroad stock, and to issue their bonds in payment of it. What is implied in a statute is as much a part of it as what is expressed. (United States v. Babbitt, 1 Black,..
More
68 U.S. 220 (____)
1 Wall. 220
GELPCKE ET AL.
v.
THE CITY OF DUBUQUE.
No. 81.
Supreme Court of United States.
Mr. JUSTICE SWAYNE, after stating the difference between the case and No. 80, and quoting this act, thus delivered the opinion of the court:
"In this act it is clearly implied that cities have authority to subscribe for railroad stock, and to issue their bonds in payment of it. What is implied in a statute is as much a part of it as what is expressed. (United States v. Babbitt, 1 Black, 61.) Considering the subject in the light of these acts, we entertain no doubt that the city possessed the power to issue these bonds."
JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED.
Source: CourtListener
