Summary

William Strong Town of Venice v. Murdock — Opinion of the Court

It is very obvious that if the act of the legislature which authorized an issue of bonds in aid of the construction of the railroad, on the written assent of two-thirds of the resident tax-payers of the town, intended that the holder of the bonds should be under obligation to prove by parol evidence that each of the two hundred and fifty-nine names signed to the written assent was a genuine signature of the person who bore the name, the proffered aid to the railroad company was a delusion.
Source: Wikisource

William Strong Town of Venice v. Murdock — Opinion of the Court

The argument would have force if the decisions, in fact, presented a clear case of statutory construction; but they do not. They are not attempts at interpretation. They would apply as well to the execution of powers or authorities granted by private persons as they do to the issue of bonds under the statute of April 16, 1852. They assert general principles,-to wit, that persons empowered to borrow money and give bonds therefor, for the purpose of paying it to an improvement company, are not authorized to deliver the bonds directly to the company
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature