•1‘om1>1¤Ns— v. LITTLE BOOK»·& Fr. s. M. ~ _ 19
ation' and organization, were the stock andbond holders of the old
company, and that the defendant acquired the property with the full
notice, in fact, of the whole transaction between the latter company
an·dJtl1e‘state, and took it, therefore,. charged with all the equities and
liens in favor ofthe state or the holders of the state bonds, to which
it was subject in the hands of the old company. i The award of state
aid wasmade, and the acts of 1868 and 1869 were both in force be-
fore the execution of the mortgage under which the defendant claims.
  i>~The state-issued the bonds and delivered.them_.to the company, in y
accordance with the statutory contract, to an amount aggregating
$1,000,000. Thesebonds were put upon the market and sold by the
company for money, which was used to build its road as contem- _
plated by the act. Afterwards, and in 1877, the supreme court of
the statedecided that the provisions of the act of 1868, providing for
holding an election to take the- sense of the people on the question of
leaning thecredit of the state as therein provided, were not in force
when the election washeld, and: that the consent of the people to such T
loan not havinglbeen “expressed through the ballot·box," as required V
by-section 6, art. 10, of the constitution; atanelection held in pur>
suance of law,·the bonds were void and imposed no obligation upon .
the state. A State v. Little Rock, M. ;R. tt T; Ry. Co. 31 Ark. 701.
l Assuming, butnot decidinggthat the ruling of the supreme court
of the state, in the case last cited, is a sound exposition of the law, or
that, whether so or not, it is binding upon this court, we will proceed
to inquire, in the light oft that decision, intothe relative rights and
obligations et the holders of the state bonds andthe railroad com-
panies. The holders ct the bonds were not before the court in that
case, and the question of their rights, and the effect ofthe decision
upon thestatutory lien, for the payment of the bonds, was not de- ·
cided; The court, at the conclusion of the opinion in that case, are
careful to say: "The question of lien upon the r0ad,1and its effects,
need not be considered." » V ' ' · V
‘ We are spared the necessity ol extended discussion,.or, indeed, of
any discussion at all, of the remaining questions inthis case. ` They .
have all been decided by the supreme court of the United States in
Railroad Cos. v. Schutte, 103 U. S. 118.   — t s i ·-
‘ ` The state of·Florida,P like the·state·of Arkansas, adoptedthe policy
of aiding in the *consti·uction-of railroads within the state by loaning
its negotiable. bonds to railroad companies. In thehlorida case, as
in aeicsee- at bar, the railroad companies »we1·ato·.pay the interest
and the principal of the state bonds according to their terms, and
?)?