Second National Bank of Lansing v. City of Lansing

Decision Date09 July 1872
Citation25 Mich. 207
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
PartiesThe Second National Bank of Lansing v. The City of Lansing

Heard July 6, 1872

Error to Ingham Circuit.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

S. F Seager and C. I. Walker, for plaintiff in error.

Dart & Wiley, for defendant in error.

Campbell J. Cooley and Graves, JJ., concurred. Christiancy, Ch. J. did not sit in this case.

OPINION

Campbell J.

Suit was brought by plaintiff against defendant, to recover the amount of an order for one thousand dollars, drawn in favor of John Shine or bearer, on the city treasurer, by order of the common council, signed by the clerk, countersigned by the auditor, and directed to be paid "out of any moneys in your hands belonging to the Michigan avenue grade fund, for grading."

The case shows there has been no money in that fund to meet the order since it was given, and the principal question presented is, whether the order created a general liability which was enforceable by suit, and payable without regard to particular funds, or whether the resort must be confined to funds raised to meet the expense of the improvement referred to.

The charter of Lansing allows the city to make such improvements, and leaves it to the discretion of the council whether or not they shall be paid for out of special assessments on property benefited. Title 6, § 9. In case too much is collected it is to be refunded, and in case too little, a further assessment is allowed on the same, or a larger, district: §§ 18, 19.

In the present case the city determined to raise the money by special assessment; and the delay has been caused by legal proceedings impeding the collection.

When not paid for by special assessment, no improvements can be made which, with the other city expenditures, will require a liability of more than one per cent. on the assessed valuation of the city, to be incurred by borrowing or otherwise, and any such debt is required to be paid out of the taxes of the year. And money borrowed is to be "applied to the purposes for which the same was borrowed, and for no other purpose whatever."

There is, therefore, no unlimited power to make improvements at the public expense. The power to make them by special assessment is broader, and allows a greater expenditure, than when the work is done as a city charge. The case does not show whether or no this work could have been done without exceeding the limit prescribed. It was not attempted as a general improvement, and no power is given under the charter to borrow money for other improvements. The paper sued on, purports to be an order on the treasury for work on a specific improvement. As the charter defines precisely how such orders shall be drawn, we are only required to examine into their effect. Except as an order, there is nothing in the charter which could give the paper any validity whatever.

The power to create debts is too closely guarded to allow negotiable securities to be issued for any but defined purposes, if at all. But as this instrument is one easily identified under the charter, its character is not left in doubt.

This order purports on its face to be issued under a resolution of the common council, of even date. The charter (Title 5, § 16) requires that no money (except school money) shall be drawn from the treasury, unless "previously appropriated to the purpose for which it shall have been drawn;" and that "all ordinances, resolutions, and orders directing the payment of money, shall specify the object and purposes of such payment, and the fund from which it shall be paid, which shall be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • McGilvery v. City of Lewiston
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 4 Mayo 1907
    ...... . APPEAL. from the District Court of Second Judicial District for the. County of Nez Perce. Hon. Edgar ...571, 92. Am. St. Rep. 276, 65 N.E. 104; Second Nat. Bank v. City. of Lansing, 25 Mich. 207; Atkinson v. City of ... Moss (Wash.), 86 P. 1129; City of Denver v. National. Exchange Bank, 34 Colo. 387, 82 P. 448; Turner v. City ......
  • Booth v. Midvale City
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • 8 Noviembre 1919
    ......267; Findlay v. Howe, 13 Wash. 236, 43 P. 28; Bank of. Lansing v. Lansing, 25 Mich. 207;. Zottman v. San ......
  • Hitchcock v. Galveston
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 1 Octubre 1877
    ...v. New York & New Haven Railroad Co., 36 Conn. 255; Alexander et al. v. The Mayor, &c. of Baltimore, 5 Gill (Md.), 383; Lansing v. Lansing, 25 Mich. 207; Ruppert et al. v. The Mayor, &c. of Baltimore, 23 Md. 184; Annapolis v. Harwood, 32 id. 471; Fairfield v. Ratcliff, 20 Iowa, 396; Head v.......
  • Aylesworth v. Gratiot County
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)
    • 30 Noviembre 1889
    ...held that no action as for a debt will lie against the municipality upon these warrants, (Goodrich v. Detroit, 12 Mich. 279; Bank v. Lansing, 25 Mich. 207; Whalen v. City La Crosse, 16 Wis. 271; Finney v. City of Oshkosh, 18 Wis. 209, Fletcher v. City of Oshkosh, Id. 232; Morgan v. City of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT