Place v. The City of Providence

• Decision Date: 27 July 1878
• Citation: 12 R.I. 1
• Parties: WILLIAM H. PLACE et al. v. THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE et als.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

12 R.I. 1

WILLIAM H. PLACE et al. v. THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE et als.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 27, 1878

Jul 15, 1876.

A bill in equity charged the respondents with making a purchase of real estate for certain improper purposes. The answer denied these purposes, and gave other and proper purposes as those of the respondents, but only gave them generally:

Held, on exception, that the purposes given in the answer should be specifically set forth, and with an averment that they were not only the real but the sole purposes of the respondents.

Answers in equity must not be evasive, but must either deny, or confess and avoid the charges of the bill.

Courts of equity have jurisdiction to prevent a municipal corporation from abusing its powers.

A municipal corporation will not be allowed to purchase realty in order by controlling it to compel a tax-payer to abandon or compromise his litigation with the municipality.

Extrinsic evidence may be used to show the true objects of municipal action.

BILL IN EQUITY to set aside a conveyance of certain realty to the city of Providence.

The bill was filed February 3, 1872, after the decision of the court in Lewis v. City of Providence, 10 R.I. 97. It was brought by several tax-payers of the city of Providence against the city of Providence, Thomas A. Doyle, who was mayor, and Messrs Angell, Coggeshall, Earle, Spicer, Spencer, Sprague, Snow Brayton, and Daboll, who were members of the board of aldermen, and charged that Doyle, as trustee, and the other respondents, being seised of lots Nos. 12 and 13 on the plat of the Dorrance Street Association, see plat in 9 R.I. between pages 460 and 461, a resolution was adopted by the city council January 8, 1872, as follows:

" Resolved, That whereas, in the opinion of the city council and in the exercise of their powers under the charter of the city of Providence, it has become for the interest of the city, in its highway department and for other municipal uses, to purchase, own, and make use of the real estate referred to in the propositions in writing to sell the same made to the city council this day by Thomas A. Doyle, for himself and certain associates, this city council hereby accepts such offer on the part of the city of Providence at its terms as contained in said written proposition; and that the city treasurer be, and he hereby is, authorized to pay to said Thomas A. Doyle the sum fixed in said proposition upon the tender to said treasurer of a deed of said real estate by said Thomas A. Doyle, approved by the city solicitor, and that the amount so paid be charged to the loan account."

The bill asserted the invalidity of this resolution, prayed that the deed of these lots to the city might be set aside, that Doyle and his respondent associates might be required to refund the purchase-moneys, and that the city might be enjoined from any further expenditure on said lots. The bill also charged that the real object of the transaction was to " enable the city, by thereby becoming a part owner in said Dorrance Street Association wharf property, to harass said Henry C. Clark," one of the complainants, " in his use of the portion of said property and estate owned and leased by him, and thereby compel him to either abandon or settle on such terms as the city or its officers might dictate the just claims he has upon said city, as established by the judgment of this honorable court, for damages sustained by him by reason of said city emptying its sewers into the dock and public waters adjacent to said wharf, and for the recovery of which he has his actions at law now pending against said city; " see in illustration of these actions Clark v. Peckham, City Treasurer, 9 R.I. 455, 466; 10 R.I. 35, 36; Clark v. City of Providence, 10 R.I. 437, 442; " and that said city now has and owns ample wharf accommodations for all its wharf business far better located upon the harbor," & c., & c. The bill closed with the following interrogatories:

" 1. Whether the real, original, primary, and principal, if not sole, purpose of the contemplated purchase of said lots was not to force said Henry C. Clark either to an abandonment or compromise, or to thwart him in the prosecution of his claims aforesaid against said city?

2. Whether the chief, if not the only, purpose of said pretended resolution of January 8, was not in furtherance of this same purpose?

3. Whether the insertion into said pretended resolution of January 8, that such purchase was made for highway purposes, was not for the purpose of evading the injunction aforesaid of this honorable court, or what was understood to be the decision of the court?^[1]

4. Whether had it not been for the purpose aforesaid, relating to the affairs of said Clark, said lots or either of them would have been purchased?

5. Whether the city has any real need of said lots or either of them for highway or any other, and if any, what other public or municipal purpose?

6. Whether at the time of the pretended purchase of said lots there was any real and bonâ fide intention of using said lots for highway purposes?

7. Whether it is not now the intention of said city and of its officers, or some of them, and their, the respondent's, intention to use said purchase, if allowed to stand, and the city's interest thereunder in said wharf property, to interfere with said Clark in the use of the portion of the said property held by him, and to force him to an abandonment or compromise of his claims aforesaid against the city."

The articles of the Dorrance Street Association are printed in 9 R.I. 457.

The complainants excepted to the answers.

James...