Page:State v. Little Rock, Mississippi River and Texas Railway.pdf/19

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Vol. 31]
MAY TERM, 1877.
719

State of Arkansas vs. Little Rock, Mississippi River and Texas R'y Co.


The numerous authorities cited by counsel in support of this position, would sustain them under ordinary issues between parties contracting, but not where the contract is void for want of power to contract. The party is never estopped from denying the existence of a law, but the effect of estoppel is to deny the existence of that, which, if undenied, has force and effect. That which is void in law is, in law, nothing, whether denied or admitted. If there is no contract, there can be no estoppel.

In the case of The Town of South Ottawa, v. Perkins, above cited, Mr. Justice Bradley, when considering this question, said: "There can be no estoppel in the way of ascertaining the existence of a law. That which purports to be a law of a State is a law, or it is not a law, according as the truth of the fact may be, and not according to the shifting circumstances of parties. It would be an intolerable state of things if a document, purporting to be an act of the legislature, could thus be a law in one case and for one party, and not a law in another case and for another party; a law to-day and not a law to-morrow! a law in one place, and not a law in another in the same State. And whether it be a law or not a law, is a judicial question to be settled and determined by the courts and judges. The doctrine of estoppel is totally inadmissible in the case."

Nor can the fact that, under a misapprehension of the character and invalidity of the act of July 21st, 1868, the State subsequently passed a law in amendment of it, affect the question. This question came before the Supreme Court of the United States, and was disposed of in the opinion above referred to. Mr. Justice Bradley says: Thus far, we have not adverted to the argument attempted to be drawn by the defendants from the fact that the act in question was referred to in two subsequent acts of the legislature. The legislature, in 1869, could not give validity to avoid act passed in 1857. The most that can be said is, that