Opinion of the Court. which presupposes a delegated authority for the purpose, and other corporate acts show that the corporation must have contemplated the legal existence of such authority, the acts of such officers will be deemed rightful, and the delegated authority will be presumed.. In short, we think that the acts of artificial persons afford the same presumptions as the acts of natural persons. Each affords presumptions, from acts done, of what must have preceded them, as matters of right or matters of duty." But further, the validity of the bonds is admitted by the answer, and, therefore, it is unnecessary to prove every separate step which otherwise might be required in order to show the legality of this issue. The inquiry here is, under what act and by what authority the county court issued them; and in determining that question, any statement on the records of the county may be competent evidence, and from all the acts and circumstances it is to be determined under which act the county was proceeding. Suppose the bonds contained no recitals, but simply an acknowledgment of indebtedness, and in a suit on them their validity was admitted, and there were two statutes, under either of which the bonds might have been issued, a single entry on the records of the county might be sufficient, in the absence of all other testimony, to support a finding that the bonds were issued under one rather than the other statute. All that can be said from the omission to introduce in evidence a full recital of all the steps necessary to make a perfect proceeding under the general statute is, that such omission detracts from the force of the testimony from the records and proceedings actually produced. In this respect it will be noticed that there is a marked difference between an omission to prove one step in a prescribed .course of proceeding, and evidence that such step was not taken, for if it were established that one essential step in a course of proceeding required by one statute was not taken, it might well be held that the bonds admitted to be valid were in fact issued under the other statute. This brings us to notice a point made in reference to the instructions: There was testimony tending to prove that a Opinion of the Court. registration had been made of the qualified voters of the county, and that it showed over 1000 such voters. The vote cast at the election was, for the subscription, 510, and against, 98; that is, more than two-thirds of those who actually voted assented to the subscription; but not two-thirds of the qualified voters, as shown by the registration. Several decisions of the Supreme Court of Missouri are cited, the latest being that of State v. Harris, 96 Missouri 29, in which that court has held that two-thirds of those actually voting is not sufficient; and that it must appear that two-thirds of the qualified voters, as ascertained by the registration, assented to the subscription, and it is said that this court follows the settled construction placed upon its statutes by the Supreme Court of a State. This question has been thoroughly discussed in this court, and it is unnecessary to enter into any reëxamination of it. These decisions were made after the issue of the bonds, and cannot be deemed controlling. Cass County v. Johnston, 95 U. S. 360; Daviess County v. Huidekoper, 98 U. S. 98; Douglass v. Pike County, 101 U. S. 677; Carroll County v. Smith, 111 U. S. 556. Another matter is this: It will be remembered that the court permitted the plaintiff to offer in evidence the tax levies for several years after the issue of the bonds; a copy of the entries made on the bond register of the county in 1874, showing the bonded indebtedness of the county; and a financial statement of the county, published by direction of the county court. It also instructed the jury that they might consider these matters in determining what was the intent of the county court in issuing the bonds, "that is to say, whether they intended to act exclusively under the railroad charter, or under authority conferred by a popular vote, or under both powers." It was not said by the court that these matters created an estoppel upon the county, or concluded it as to the question, but simply that they were matters to be considered. It is a familiar rule that the interpretation given to a contract by the parties themselves is competent, and oftentimes very weighty, evidence in determining its meaning and force. So in a matter of this kind, the whole conduct of the county, both before, Opinion of the Court. at the time, and after the issue of the bonds, may be shown to aid in determining under what statute and by what authority the county proceeded in the issue of these bonds. Chicago v. Sheldon, 9 Wall. 50, 54; Steinbach v. Stewart, 11 Wall. 566, 576; Canal Company v. Hill, 15 Wall. 94; Merriam v. United States, 107 U. S. 437; United States v. Gibbons, 109 U. S. 200. Again, it is urged that the order for the election was invalid, inasmuch as no corporation was named as the proposed recipient of the subscription, but it has been held to the contrary, and that it is sufficient if the route is designated, leaving to the county authorities the selection of the particular corporation to be the recipient of the subscription. Commissioners v. Thayer, 94 U. S. 631; Scipio v. Wright, 101 U. S. 665. Another matter requires notice, and it is of great significance: The constitution of the State of Missouri, adopted July 4, 1865, article II, section 14, provided that "the general assembly shall not authorize any county, city or town to become a stockholder in or to loan its credit to any company, association or corporation unless two-thirds of the qualified voters of such county, city or town, at a regular or special election, to be held therein, shall assent thereto." At the October term, 1867, of the Supreme Court of Missouri, the case of State v. Macon County Court, 41 Missouri, 453, was decided, in which it was held that the constitution had no retroactive effect upon statutes passed before its adoption, and that, therefore, under the Missouri and Mississippi Railroad Company act, passed February 20, 1865, a few months before the adoption of the constitution, there was power in the county authorities to subscribe without the assent of the voters. It may well be believed as asserted by counsel for defendant in error, that, until that decision was announced, the understanding that the prohibition in the constitution superseded all unexecuted authority given by prior charters was so general, that no county court would have dared to subscribe stock and issue bonds without the assent of two-thirds of the qualified voters. This subscription was made, some of the bonds issued, as well as the vote held, before the decision in the Macon County case, and it is difficult to believe that the county court did not issue Statement of the Case. these bonds in reliance upon the authority given them by the vote of the people, in pursuance of the general laws of the State, although referring on the face of the bonds to the Missouri and Mississippi Railroad Company act, which specially authorized the company to receive and the counties. through which it ran to make subscriptions. It is very likely that the county court had in mind the special act creating the Missouri and Mississippi Railroad Company, as well as the general law, and the vote of the people under it, and that it meant to exercise all the authority conferred by both. It is enough for this case that the vote of the people authorizing this issue of bonds was given, and that the county court acted in reliance thereon, for, by assent, through their vote, to such issue of bonds the people, in the way prescribed by the statutes of the State, in effect consented that a levy beyond the meagre one provided for by the Missouri and Mississippi Railroad Company act might be resorted to for the payment of these bonds. These are the substantial matters involved in this litigation. We find no error in the proceedings of the Circuit Court, and its judgment is Affirmed. LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. PRENTICE. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 58. Argued November 23, 1892. - Decided January 3, 1893. A railroad corporation is not liable to exemplary or punitive damages for an illegal, wanton and oppressive arrest of a passenger by the conductor of one of its trains, which it has in no way authorized or ratified. THIS was an action of trespass on the case, brought October 19, 1886, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, by Prentice, a citizen of Ohio, Statement of the Case. against the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company, a corporation of Illinois, to recover damages for the wrongful acts of the defendant's servants. The declaration alleged, and the evidence introduced at the trial tended to prove, the following facts: The plaintiff was a physician. The defendant was engaged in operating a railroad, and conducting the business of a common carrier of passengers and freight, through Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and other States. On October 12, 1886, the plaintiff, his wife and a number of other persons were passengers, holding excursion tickets, on a regular passenger train of the defendant's railroad, from Norwalk in Ohio to Chicago in Illinois. During the journey the plaintiff purchased of several passengers their return tickets, which had nothing on them to show that they were not transferable. The conductor of the train, learning this, and knowing that the plaintiff had been guilty of no offence for which he was liable to arrest, telegraphed for a police officer, an employé of the defendant, who boarded the train as it approached Chicago. The conductor thereupon, in a loud and angry voice, pointed out the plaintiff to the officer, and ordered his arrest; and the officer, by direction of the conductor, and without any warrant or authority of law, seized the plaintiff and rudely searched him for weapons in the presence of the other passengers, hurried him into another car, and there sat down by him as a watch, and refused to tell him the cause of his arrest, or to let him speak to his wife. While the plaintiff was being removed into the other car, the conductor, for the purpose of disgracing and humiliating him with his fellow-passengers, openly declared that he was under arrest, and sneeringly said to the plaintiff's wife, "Where's your doctor now?" On arrival at Chicago, the conductor refused to let the plaintiff assist his wife with her parcels in leaving the train, or to give her the check for their trunk; and, in the presence of the passengers and others, ordered him to be taken to the station-house, and he was forcibly taken there, and detained until the conductor arrived and, knowing that the plaintiff had been guilty of no offence, entered a false charge against him of disorderly conduct, upon which he gave bail and was |