Austin v. Coggeshall

• Decision Date: 12 April 1879
• Citation: 12 R.I. 329
• Parties: WILLIAM M. AUSTIN et al. v. DAVID M. COGGESHALL, City Treasurer of the City of Newport.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

12 R.I. 329

WILLIAM M. AUSTIN et al. v. DAVID M. COGGESHALL, City Treasurer of the City of Newport.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

April 12, 1879

A clause in a city charter provided that " nothing in this charter shall be construed .... as giving power to vote money for any object except for the regular ordinary and usual expenses of the city."

This clause being in force the city council resolved to give a ball and banquet in honor of certain strangers. The resolution of the council and the preparations for the ball were well known, and September 9, 1878, the ball took place. September 27, 1878, certain tax-payers of the city prayed that the city treasurer might be perpetually enjoined from paying the bills incurred.

Held, that the injunction must issue.

Held, further, that neither the fact that the city authorities had without objection given a similar ball in 1875, nor that the complainant tax-payers had waited till the expense had been incurred before filing their bill of complaint, nor that the caterers had acted in good faith and must suffer if the injunction issued, could be urged by the respondent treasurer against the prayer of the bill.

Held, further, that one who contracts with a municipal corporation is bound at his own peril to know the limits of municipal authority.

BILL IN EQUITY praying for an injunction. The facts involved are stated in the opinion of the court. The clause of the charter of the city of Newport referred to is:

" Nothing contained in this charter shall be construed either as giving the city corporation any banking privileges or the power to subscribe to any railroad, canal, or any public work whatever, or to do and transact any matter except such as belongs to the legitimate duties of a municipal body within its own province, or as giving power to vote money for any object except for the regular ordinary and usual expenses of the city."

A. & A. D. Payne and William Gilpin, for complainants.

Francis B. Peckham, Jr., City Solicitor of the city of Newport, for respondent.

DURFEE C. J.

In the summer of 1878, the Bellerophon, under the command of Vice-admiral Inglefield, with two other British ships of war, visited Newport harbor, remaining from August 28 until after September 9. On their arrival the city council of Newport appointed a committee to arrange an entertainment for the officers. Accordingly a ball and banquet were given at the Ocean House, September 9, at a cost of about $2,950, invitations being extended to some twelve hundred citizens as well as to the officers. It is alleged, by way of apology for the city council, that on a similar visit in 1875 a similar entertainment was given without objection from anybody, and that the presence of the vessels drew crowds of visitors to the city to the considerable emolument of the citizens. The resolution to give the entertainment was so notorious that it must be presumed to have been known at once to the complainants, who were residents in Newport, and who nevertheless took no legal steps to prevent the entertainment. The answer alleges that the committee of arrangements acted in good faith, believing their action was legal. It also alleges, what appears to have been the fact, that the entertainment was provided on the credit of the city by persons who had no connection with the city government and who honestly believed that the committee had power to contract for the city. These persons remain unpaid. This suit was commenced September 27, 1878, by certain tax-payers of the city of Newport. The bill prays for an injunction to restrain the defendant, who is the city treasurer of the city of Newport, from paying the cost of the entertainment out of the treasury, it being anticipated that an order for the payment may be given by the city council.

The bill sets forth a clause of the charter of the city of Newport, which declares that nothing in the charter shall be construed " as giving power to vote money for any object, except for the regular ordinary and usual expenses of the city."

The defendant concedes that the city council had no authority to contract or to empower the committee to contract for the entertainment in the name of the city, and rests his defence solely on the ground that the complainants have forfeited all claim to equitable relief by their laches in waiting until after the entertainment had been given before bringing the suit. He cites in support of this position the case of Tash v. Adams, 10 Cush. 252, in which the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts refused to enjoin the payment of money illegally appropriated for the celebration of the second centennial anniversary of the settlement of a Massachusetts town, because of such laches on the part of those by whom the injunction was asked. " With a full knowledge of the vote of the town and the proceedings of the committee," says Mr. Justice Bigelow in delivering judgment, " they, i. e. the petitioners, permitted contracts to be made, and expenditures to be incurred, not only by the committee, but by third parties, who acted in good faith, relying on the credit of the town. They took no measures to enforce...