Thomas v. City of Port Huron
| Decision Date | 11 July 1873 |
| Citation | 27 Mich. 320 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Nahum E. Thomas v. The City of Port Huron |
Heard April 11, 1873
Error to St. Clair Circuit.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Chadwick Stevens & Thomas, for plaintiff in error.
Cyrus Miles and R. P. & J. B. Eldredge, for defendant in error.
This suit is upon a bond issued by the city of Port Huron under the provisions of "An act to authorize any of the townships and cities of the counties of St. Clair, Lapeer, Genesee and Shiawassee, to pledge their credit in aid of the construction of a railroad from Port Huron to some point on the line of the Detroit & Milwaukee railroad, in Shiawassee county," approved March 18th, 1865.--Laws of 1865, p. 547.
The bond in question, with others, amounting in the aggregate to thirty-seven thousand five hundred dollars, was issued to the Port Huron & Lake Michigan railroad company, in exchange for bonds of the company to an equal amount, and no question is made as to the several provisions of the act regarding the issue of such bonds having been complied with. And we are to consider this case on the concession that no question is involved but that of the liability of the city issuing such bonds under the legislation referred to, and in accordance therewith.
The constitutional power of the Legislature to pass enabling acts like the one in question was so fully considered in People v. Township Board of Salem, 20 Mich. 452, and People v. State Treasurer, 23 Mich. 499, that any further discussion would seem superfluous. We have held in those cases that on the fundamental principles underlying the taxing power, and also upon specific provision of the State constitution, such legislation is void.
When this case was presented, we were all of opinion that the two previous cases must rule this, and that it presented no new features which could distinguish it. But as it was strongly pressed upon us that the fact of the city having received the bonds of the railroad company in exchange for its own, furnished a legal consideration which would support its undertaking, we have allowed the case to lie over to this time for more mature reflection.
Further consideration, however, does not enable us to reach this conclusion. Putting aside as unauthorized the enabling act in question, it will not be pretended that the city had any authority whatever for issuing these bonds. And the only point presented for decision is, whether, when a municipal corporation issues its obligations without authority of law, the fact that it receives in exchange therefor the obligations of the party to whom they are issued can make valid the unauthorized obligations of the city.
It is not claimed that the city has ever received from the railroad company any payment upon the bonds of the latter, either by way of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burgin v. Smith
... ... legislative remedy for the evils of municipal ... government." Thomas v. Port Huron, 27 Mich ... 320; Snyder v. City Mt. Pulaski, 176 Ill ... ...
-
Martin v. Tyler
...only, and did not in terms include counties and townships. See, also, upon this point, Webb v. Lafayette Co., 67 Mo. 353;Thomas v. City of Port Huron, 27 Mich. 320. But it is urged that draining swamp and overflowed lands, when it will conduce to the health and welfare of the community and ......
-
The City of St. Louis to Use of Glencoe Lime & Cement Company v. Von Phul
... ... and for municipal purposes." Thomas v. Port ... Huron, 27 Mich. 320 ... But ... municipal corporations have not ... ...
-
Sutherland-Innes Co. v. Village of Evart
...pledge its credit or issue bonds. People v. Township Board of Salem, 20 Mich. 452; People v. State Treasurer, 23 Mich. 499; Thomas v. City of Port Huron, 27 Mich. 320. provisions of the constitution of Michigan, so far as they affect this question, will be found sufficiently referred to in ......