Agnew v. Brall

• Decision Date: 28 March 1888
• Citation: 124 Ill. 312,16 N.E. 230
• Parties: AGNEW et al. v. BRALL.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

124 Ill. 312

16 N.E. 230

AGNEW et al.

v.BRALL.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 28, 1888.

Error to appellate court, Third district.

A bill of injunction by A. J. Brall against H. C. Agnew, O. W. Williams, W. H. Franklin, and the city of Macomb, to enjoin defendants from collecting a judgment in favor of such city and against plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.G. D. Tunnicliff, L. Y. Sherman

, and H. C. Agnew, for plaintiffs in error.

James M. Blazer, for defendant in error.

CRAIG, J.

This was a bill to enjoin the collection of a judgment recovered by the city of Macomb against A. J. Brall before a justice of the peace for the sum of $200. The judgment was rendered on the 20th day of March, 1883, for the violation of a city ordinance. On the 3d day of the following April, at a meeting of the city council of the city of Macomb, A. J. Brall presented a petition to that body, in which he requested that the judgment be released upon the payment of $100 and the costs of suit. Upon the presentation of the petition, a motion was adopted by the city council to accept $100 and costs in satisfaction of the judgment, and the mayor was instructed to cancel the judgment in the justice's docket upon receipt of the amount named. After the action of the city council, Brall paid the city $100, which passed into the city treasury; he also paid the costs. But the city attorney claimed that the city council had no right to accept a part of the judgment in satisfaction of the whole, and, disregarding the action of the city council, he sued out an execution and placed it in the hands of an officer for the purpose of collecting the full amount of the judgment.

The city of Macomb was incorporated under the general incorporation law of the state, and the city council was clothed with such powers, and only such, as are conferred by the act of incorporation, or such as may be necessary to carry out the powers expressly granted. It is a plain proposition of law, and one well understood, that in the discharge of their duties a city council must act within the bounds prescribed by their charter, and if they exceed the powers conferred by the charter, such acts are nugatory. They have no power to squander or give away the funds or property of the incorporation, but all property within their control belonging to the incorporation must be honestly applied to the uses and purposes specified in the act of incorporation. The city council have no power to sell or in any manner dispose of the property of the corporation without consideration, and, in our opinion, they have no right to discharge a debt, without payment, which may be held against parties who are solvent and responsible, where no controversy exists in regard to the validity and binding effect of the indebtedness. But a municipal corporation has power to settle disputed claims against it. 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. § 398. It may prosecute suits in favor of the corporation, and defend actions brought against it; it may sue and be sued; and...