American Electric Company v. City of Waseca
| Decision Date | 15 November 1907 |
| Docket Number | 15,290 - (57) |
| Citation | 113 N.W. 899,102 Minn. 329 |
| Parties | AMERICAN ELECTRIC COMPANY v. CITY OF WASECA and Another |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Waseca county to recover $2,600 for apparatus and machinery shipped to and received by the defendant. The case was tried before Buckham, J., who dismissed the action as to defendant City of Waseca and directed a verdict for $2,500 and interest against defendant Water and Light Board of the City of Waseca. From an order denying its motion for a new trial, defendant Water and Light Board of the City of Waseca appealed. Affirmed.
Water and Light Board.
The water and light board of the city of Waseca is, under the provisions of the charter of the city, clothed with the exclusive superintendence, control, and management of the city water and light plant, and authorized to enter into such contracts for and on behalf of the city, within the limitations contained in the said charter, as the members thereof deem for the public interests.
Water and Light Board.
The mayor or the city is not a member of the board, nor has he authority, under the charter or otherwise, to cancel or rescind a contract duly made by the board within the scope of its authority.
Water and Light Board -- Right to Sue.
Though the board is but an agency of the city, it may, under the provisions of the charter, sue and be sued, and this action was properly brought against it.
Limitation on Indebtedness.
The provisions of sections 1095 and 1639, G.S. 1894, limiting the indebtedness of municipal corporations to five per cent. of the assessed valuation of taxable property do not apply to the city of Waseca.
Limitation on Indbtedness -- Defendant's Charter.
The provisions of the charter enacted under chapter 238, Laws 1903, limiting the indebtedness to ten per cent. of the assessed valuation of taxable property, supersedes the provisions of the general statutes, and the limit by which the city is controlled is that fixed by the charter.
Evidence.
Evidence held to support the verdict for plaintiff.
McGovern and John Moonan, for appellant.
Thomas McDermott and C. Louis Weeks, for respondent.
In May 1904, the city of Waseca adopted a "home rule" charter, under and pursuant to chapter 238, p. 349, Laws 1903, and has since been governed and controlled by the provisions thereof. The charter deals minutely with subjects appropriate to municipal control, and, among other things created a "water and light board of the city of Waseca." The general duties of the board are prescribed, and to it are committed the superintendence, care, and control of the city water and lighting plant. The board was expressly authorized to extend the plant, by purchasing such new and additional machinery and appliances as the members thereof deemed necessary for furnishing light for city and commercial purposes. With reference to the duties of the board the charter provides: "All contracts, engagements, acts and doings of said board within the scope of their duties and authority, shall be as obligatory and in law as binding as if done by the common council of said city." Subsequent to the adoption of the charter, this board was duly and regularly appointed by the mayor, and the members thereof duly qualified and entered upon the discharge of their duties. On September 27, 1904, the board entered into a contract with plaintiff in this action, under and by the terms of which plaintiff agreed to furnish and deliver to the board at the city of Waseca certain equipment, apparatus, and machinery for the extension of the city's light plant, the purchase price of which was $3,700. Plaintiff complied with the contract and shipped the material to the board at Waseca, a portion of which was received and accepted by the board and has never been returned. A dynamo, part of the machinery so contracted to be sold, was not shipped at the time of that which was received and accepted, but at a later date. About the time of the shipment of the dynamo a controversy seems to have arisen between the water and light board and the mayor or city council with reference to the propriety of the proceedings by the board, and an injunction suit was brought restraining the further performance of the contract. The dynamo referred to remained at the railroad station during this time; the board being unable to accept it because of the injunction. It was subsequently returned to plaintiff and sold to other parties with the consent of the board; plaintiff agreeing to furnish a new one when the controversy at Waseca should cease and the board should order it. Plaintiff made due demand for payment for the material furnished and accepted by the board, which the city refused to make, whereupon this action was brought against the board and also the city to recover the value thereof. The evidence shows that the property received by the board was reasonably worth $2,500. The trial court dismissed the action as to the city, but directed a verdict against the board for the value of the material so received and accepted. The defendant board appealed from an order denying a new trial.
Three principal contentions are made by the defendant: (1) That the contract under which plaintiff shipped the property to defendant was, before the shipment, rescinded by the mayor of the city; (2) that the action cannot be maintained against the water and light board, for the reason that it is a mere agency of the city, incapable of being sued for goods sold to it for the use of the city; that the action could be brought only against the city; (3) that the liability created by the contract upon which the action is founded exceeded the statutory limit of indebtedness authorized to be incurred by the city, and the contract was therefore wholly void.
1. We find no special difficulty in disposing of these questions. The charter of the city of Waseca, like all modern municipal charters, proceeds along...
To continue reading
Request your trial