John v. The Cincinnati, Richmond, and Ft. Wayne R. R. Co. and Another. The constitution, which vests the legislative authority of the State in the Genera! Assembly, is ample for this purpose. Const. art. 4, sec. I. The State being authorized to build railroads, it follows that it may levy a tax, in accordance with the provisions of the constitution, for that purpose. It would be paradoxical to say that the legislature have power to do a given thing, and at the same time say that they have not the power to provide the necessary means for that purpose. The constitution, vesting the legislative authority of the State in the general assembly, is ample authority also for this purpose. The taxing power is legislative in its character, and as such is fully vested in the general assembly, subject to such restrictions as are contained in the constitution. Taxation is perhaps the most universal power possessed by goverments, and may always be resorted to when necessary to carry out any other power granted to the legislature. As the State may build railroads, and for that purpose levy and collect taxes, the question arises whether she must do it directly through her own employees, or whether she may avail herself for that purpose of a railroad corporation. On both principle and authority she may do the latter. She must necessarily have a choice of means to the accomplishment of the end. The end, so far as the State is concerned, is the furnishing to her citizens of the means of transportation and inter-communication. It is no answer to this to say that the object and end of the railroad company which undertakes the building of the road is the private profit of the company or the corporators. If the corporation builds and operates a railroad, and complies with the law regulating her conduct, the object of the State in respect to the given road is accomplished; the facilities of travel and transportation are furnished. The people along the line of the road who are taxed for the stock subscribed by them, and who can be taxed only on a vote of their own, realize the benefits expected by them, and the State has discharged her duty to them by furnishing the necessary facilities. John v. The Cincinnati, Richmond, and Ft. Wayne R. R. Co. and Another. Perhaps this is not the most judicious system that could be adopted, on the part of the State, for furnishing her citizens the necessary facilities for travel and transportation, but we are of opinion that the legislature, in adopting it, have not transcended their constitutional authority. Something may, however, be said in vindication of its policy. While the leading and main lines of railroads would, perhaps, invite sufficient capital for their construction, without a resort to taxation by counties or townships for the purpose of subscriptions, yet there are many others, less important and shorter, that could not be built without such local aid as is provided for by the law in question, and which are of great importance and convenience to those living along their lines, and which, when constructed and in operation, confer benefits more than equivalent to the aid furnished. It is not, however, our province to pass upon the wisdom or policy of the law, but simply its constitutionality. It contemplates a payment for the stock at the time of subscription, and not the creation of any debt therefor, and we think it constitutional and valid. The judgment below is affirmed, with costs. W. A. Peelle, C. H. Burchenal, and H. C. Fox, for appellant. F. P. Siddall, for appellees. INDEX. A ABATEMENT. See JOINT CONTRACT, 1, 2. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. Agreement. The plea of accord and satisfaction must allege that the thing the creditor may have agreed to receive of the debtor in satisfaction of the debt was received. Check....... ACTION. Deweese v. 514 ARBITRATION AND AWARD. See REFEREES, 3. ARREST OF JUDGMENT. See JUDGMENT; REAL Property, RE-COVERY OF, 2. I. 2. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS. See SUPREME Court. ATTACHMENT. Garnishee.-A. sued B. in a civil action, and also proceeded in attachment. C. was summoned to answer as garnishec. The affidavit alleged that C. "has money in his possession belonging to the defendant, and that as paymaster of" a certain railroad company "he owes the defendant, on estimates of work, and now has the money in his possession, which the sheriff cannot attach in this action." Answer in denial. Held, that a motion for a new trial did not present any question as to the sufficiency of the affidavit. McKee V. Anderson et al......... ..........17 Same.-Evidence.-The admission of a person summoned as a garnishee, that he is indebted to the defendant in the attachment proceeding, will sustain a judgment against him as garnishee....... ....... Ibid. 3. Undertaking.-When an undertaking, made by a defendant whose property has been attached, to enable him to retain the possession of the property, is sued upon, and a copy of it is set out and made a part of the complaint, and it is defective by reason of not being made payable to the plaintiff in the attachment proceeding, the defect is cured by section 790 of the code, 2 G. & H. 333. Moore et ATTORNEY. See COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 3. I. fendant is the father. Cunningham I. Circuit Court-The circuit court is 3. Action for Services.-General Em- Court of Common Pleas.-Jurisdic BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. vices rendered as an attorney. Upon See DEPOSITION; EVIDENCE, 3; PRAC- the trial, the court gave the follow- TICE, 4, 7; Record, 2, 3. BOND. extends until the final termination of See ATTACHMENT, 3; RECOGNIZANCE, the case in the court of last resort, for services rendered, unless there is с CASES OVERRULED. Held that this instruction was erroneous. 1. Appeal.-County Commissioners.— B See CRIMINAL LAW, 6; FUGITIVE FROM Replevin Bail. See FRAUD, 3, 4. BASTARDY. 1. Verdict.-The verdict of a jury in 2. Board of Comm'rs of Wells Co. v. |