
    Parks et al. v. The Iowa Central Railroad Company.
    Swamp lands! appropriation op: submission to vote. It is competent for the people of a county to appropriate its swamp lands to the construction of a railroad running through the county, and a proposition to so appropriate them may be lawfully submitted to a vote of the people without submitting therewith the contract for the construction of the road, and even before such a contract is made.
    
      Appeal from, Tama District Court.
    
    Wednesday, April 8.
    Plaintiffs, citizens and tax payers of Tama county, by their petition, seek to restrain the Iowa Central Railroad company and others from appropriating or using certain swamp lands, or the proceeds thereof, in or about the construction of said road through said county. The injunction was granted; afterward, on defendant’s motion, dissolved, and from this order plaintiffs appeal.
    
      
      Boardman da Brown and Withrow da Wright for the appellants.
    No appearance for the appellee.
   Wright, J.

The main point made by appellants, as we understand the brief argument submitted, relates to the sufficiency of the petition to entitle them to the relief claimed.

The question of devoting these lands to the purpose named seems to have been submitted to a vote of the people of the county of Tama. At this election, a large majority voted in favor of pr0p0Se(j appropriation; and the requisite orders, resolutions and entries were duly made of record. Indeed, except in the particular herein after named, no exception was or is now taken to said submission and proceedings.

The objection taken is, that no contract was made, and hence none submitted to the people for their approval or ratification as contemplated by sections 987 and 988 of the ".Revision. In our opinion, this was not necessary. Taking section 986, in connection with the amendment thereof (acts of 1862, ch. 77, p. 78), it was competent to devote' these lands, or their proceeds, to the making of railroads through said county. It is proper to remark, that there is no pretense, that the road was not being built; nor, that the enterprise was not in fact prosecuted as contemplated by the vote. That this is the correct view of the statute, is shown by the case of Barrett v. Brooks (21 Iowa, 144), where the subject is fully discussed.

Affirmed.  