Barnett v. City of Denison
Citation | 36 L.Ed. 652,12 S.Ct. 819,145 U.S. 135 |
Parties | BARNETT v. CITY OF DENISON |
Decision Date | 02 May 1892 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Action by William H. Barnett against the city of Denison on certain coupons cut from municipal bonds. The court directed a verdict for defendant, and entered judgment accordingly. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
STATEMENT BY MR. JUSTICE BROWN.
This was an action to recover the amount of certain coupons cut from bonds issued by the city of Denison 'for the reduction of and cancellation of the outstanding city scrip, and for the improvement of streets,' etc.
The charter of the city, adopted March 7, 1873, conferred upon it power (section 27) etc. Section 28: 'To issue bonds in aid of any corporation or enterprise, either manufacturing, railroad, or for other purposes, calculated to advance the interests of the said city, and to borrow money for that purpose, and to take stock therein, or in any of them: provided,' etc.
Pursuant to this charter, the city council, on August 9, 1873, adopted the following ordinance:
No reference was made in the bonds to the purpose for which they were issued, but they contained the following paragraph: 'These bonds are issued by virtue of an ordinance passed by the board of aldermen of said city on the 9th day of August, and approved by the mayor on the 9th day of August, 1873.'
It was stipulated upon the trial that 'if the failure to state the purpose for which the bonds were issued more specifically than is contained in said bonds was such a defect as deprived them of the quality of negotiable paper, and visited all purchasers for value with notice, then the city of Denison had a good defense to the suit; but, if not such a defect, then plaintiff ought to recover as prayed for in his petition.'
The court charged the jury that, by the charter, notice was imputed to all persons purchasing bonds that the purpose for which they were issued should be stated, and instructed them to return a verdict for the defendant, which was done. The plaintiff thereupon took out a writ of error from this court.
H. Chilton, for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 137-139 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
This case involves the single question whether a requirement of a charter that the bonds issued by a municipal corporation shall specify for what purpose they are issued is so far satisfied by a bond which purports on its face to be issued by virtue of an ordinance, the date of which is given, but not its title or its contents, as to cut off defenses which might otherwise be made.
We are of the opinion that it is not. It is the settled doctrine of this court that municipal corporations are merely agents of the state government for local purposes, and possess only such powers as are expressly given or implied, because essential to carry into effect such as are expressly granted, (1 Dill. Mun. Corp. § 89; Ottawa v. Carey, 108 U. S. 110, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 361;) that the bonds of such corporations are void unless there be express or implied authority to issue them, (Wells v. Supervisors, 102 U. S. 625; Claiborne Co. v. Brooks, 111 U. S. 400, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 489; Concord v. Robinson, 121 U. S. 165, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 937; Kelley v. Milan, 127 U. S. 139, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1101;) that the provisions of the statute authorizing them must be strictly pursued, and that the purchaser or holder of such bonds is chargealbe with notice of the requirements of the law...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Olds v. Alvord
... ... 470, 112 So. 253; Thompson v. Town of Frostproof, 89 ... Fla. 92, 103 So. 118; City of Fort Myers v. State, ... 95 Fla. 704, 117 So. 97; Whitney v. Hillsborough ... County, 99 ... Sutliff v. Lake County Com'rs, 147 U.S. 230, 13 ... S.Ct. 318, 37 L.Ed. 145. [See Barnett v. Dennison, ... 145 U.S. 135, 12 S.Ct. 819, 36 L.Ed. 652.] * * * ... 'Where ... there ... ...
-
Olds v. Alvord
... ... for rehearing ... Under ... the case of State ex rel. Davis v. City of Avon ... Park, 117 Fla. 556, 151 So. 701, there would have been ... no question about the ... Sutliff v. Lake County Comm'rs., 147 U.S. 230, ... 13 S.Ct. 318, 37 L.Ed. 145. [See Barnett v. Denison, ... 145 U.S. 135, 12 S.Ct. 819 [36 L.Ed. 652.] * * * ... "Where ... there ... ...
-
First Nat. Bank v. Obion County
...130 U. S. 674, 9 S. Ct. 654, 32 L. Ed. 1065; Doon v. Cummins, 142 U. S. 366, 12 S. Ct. 220, 35 L. Ed. 1044; Barnett v. Dennison, 145 U. S. 135, 14 S. Ct. 1142, 38 L. Ed. 1075; Knox County v. Bank, 147 U. S. 91, 13 S. Ct. 267, 37 L. Ed. 93; Sutliff v. Lake County, 147 U. S. 230, 238, 13 S. C......
-
State ex rel. Cnty. Atty v. Des Moines City Ry. Co.
...Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (2d Ed.) 205, 210; Dillon on Municipal Corporations, §§ 715, 716; Barnett v. Denison, 145 U. S. 135, 139, 12 Sup. Ct. 819, 36 L. Ed. 652. And legislative grants of powers to municipal corporations are to be so strictly construed as to operate as a surrend......