f1'0MPKINS‘{'U.' LITTLE aoox are FT. s. BY. `13
*·But in the case at bar the intention ofnthé parties to create a lien
on the road, and its income and revenues, is not left to implication or
interpretation. It is expressed in terms. The seventh section of the
act declares: ~ » " ‘   ` *
•* The taxation in this section provided to continue until the amount of
bonds issued to such company, with the interest thereon, shall have been paid
by said company ·as herein specified, in which case the said road shall be en- s
titled to a discharge from all claims or liens on the part of the state."
· When “shall the said road be entitled to a discharge from all claims
or liens on the part of the state ?" The answer given inthe very p
language of the act is, when "the amount of bonds issued to such
company, with the interest thereon, shall have been paid by said com-
pany as herein spe`ci‘ded." lf the state had no "lien" on the "road,"
why make provision for dischargingit ? V ~ s ·
J- Againythe act (section’5,·Act 1869) provides that, whenithe com-
’pany»has* paid the debt, thetreasurer of the state shall "withdraw
said receiver from the management of itts»affairs.*’ = · ~
’ "Affairs" is a word of large import, and areceiver having the man-
agement of the/affairs of a railroad company must necessarily have
the control and management of its road. t' Y · t ° ·~
"i The receiver herespoken of was to bedesignated by the treasurer
of the stategand to give suchlbond ashe required, and was removable
at his pleasure, thus in effect making him an’agent·of= the state; — ~
Any discussion ofthis question would seem to be unnecessaryyin
view of the decision·ofvthe supreme court of the United?iStates=in
Ketchum v.rSt. Louis, 101 U. S. 306; S. C. 4 Dill.=78, under theetitle ·
of-~Ketehum v. Pacvjic R'. Oo; In that case the act nuthoriaediithe
county to loan its bonds to the railroad company, and provided that l
the fund commissioner rot the road,‘an‘0Hicer~theretofore created¤by'
law to receive*the·earnings>and-` income of; the¤-road, to secure the
state from liability on itsbonds before that time loaned to- the com- T
pany; sliould*'pay into thecounty treasury, ·out»$of· theearnings of
tithe road, a specilied sum toupayi the·¥interest"andl principal of·iilhe‘
bonds which the county miglit’·loan* to thercompany: ’ml1l.Bi9,0d*WdS
Ypassed in 1865, and the same year thepountyagreed witlrtheconi- l
pany to _issue¤the"bonds; »·But `this agreement iwas not carried out
and no bonds were issued under it ¥until?¥18¤75. ’— as a period of I0
— years this·agreement,l'ay%dormant.   In the dneantimej in·*l868; the
‘oHice or fund*”`commissioner‘was abolished; -ilKetchuvhiv£‘ Pact/$c·R.
  I)i1l;'85,’ 86. This {was `thei cbnditienfof affairsmwhen the
¢company;executed}one or more imertgsges onits"road·;’ » Oneéotithebe