Brown v. County Commissioners

• Decision Date: 11 April 1853
• Citation: 21 Pa. 37
• Parties: Brown <I>versus</I> The County Commissioners.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

21 Pa. 37

Brown versus The County Commissioners.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 11, 1853.

THIS was a Bill in Equity, filed in the Supreme Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on the part of John A. Brown and others, citizens and taxable inhabitants of the county of Philadelphia, complaining that Adam Shetzline, William Faunce, and William S. Allen, County Commissioners of the county of Philadelphia, were about to subscribe for 20,000 shares of stock in the Sunbury and Erie Railroad Company, at $100 per share. It was further alleged, that they designed to issue bonds in the name of the county of Philadelphia to the amount of two millions of dollars, pledging the faith and credit of the county for their payment. It was alleged that the proceeding was without authority in law, and an injunction was prayed for to restrain the defendants from making the subscription, or issuing the bonds.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

William D. Baker and John M. Read were for the respondents.

It was contended that, by the Act of 15th April, 1834, the county of Philadelphia was a corporation, and that the county commissioners were the corporate or constituted authorities of the corporation, within the terms of the Act of 10th February, 1852, authorizing subscriptions for shares in the stock of the Sunbury and Erie Railroad Company. It was stated that the County Board was created by the Act of 10th April, 1834, passed five days before the Act of 15th April, 1834, relating to counties and townships; but that it was not stated in that or any other subsequent Act, that the members of the legislature from the city and county were a part of the corporate authorities of the county. It was intimated that the act establishing the County Board was unconstitutional, as investing members of the legislature, who have only legislative authority by the Constitution, with powers foreign to their duties as legislators, and of a local and executive and administrative character. It was, however, alleged that the decision of this question was not necessary in this case, as the county commissioners were the only corporate authority competent to act in making the subscription authorized by the Act of 10th February, 1852.

It was further suggested, that the Supreme Court could not exercise a jurisdiction over municipal corporations, under the Act of 16th June, 1836, giving them a general supervisory power over corporations.

The opinion of the Court was delivered, April 11, 1853, by BLACK, C.J.

This is a bill in equity by several citizens and taxable inhabitants of the county of Philadelphia, who complain that the defendants, commissioners of the county, have agreed to subscribe for twenty thousand shares of capital stock in the Sunbury and Erie Railroad Company, at one hundred dollars for each share, and to pay for these shares are about to make and issue bonds in the name of the county, to the amount of two millions of dollars; pledging the faith and credit of the county for their payment. The bill avers that the large debt thus to be created will seriously impair the credit of the county, and augment the taxation upon the property of the citizens; and that the whole proceeding, as contemplated by the commissioners, is without any warrant or authority of law. The relief prayed for is an injunction to restrain the defendants from making the subscription or issuing the bonds referred to.

The answer admits that two of the Commissioners (being a majority) have agreed to subscribe for the stock as alleged in the bill, and that they intend to pay for it in bonds of the county, and they are well assured that they have the power by law to do so.

The facts being undisputed, the plaintiff's counsel have laid before us the bill and answer, and moved us for a preliminary injunction. Whether we can grant it or not depends upon the construction to be given to the several statutes, which prescribe the duties and define the powers of the County Commissioners.

It is not pretended, and if it were, it could not be believed for a single moment, that the Commissioners of a county can pledge the property of their constituents for money to be invested in the stock of a railroad corporation, unless it be done in pursuance of some special statute. The general law of the land forbids that money shall be borrowed on the faith of the county for such a purpose, or that public funds already in the treasury shall be so appropriated.

The power now claimed by the defendants, is asserted by their counsel to have been conferred on them by the first section of a supplement to the charter of the Sunbury and Erie Railroad Company, passed February 10th, 1852, which contains these words: — "It shall be competent to the corporate and constituted authorities of any municipal or other corporation in the Commonwealth, to subscribe for shares in the capital stock of the Sunbury and Erie Railroad Company; and to borrow money to pay therefor and to make provision for the payment of the principal and interest of the money so borrowed." It is argued that the county is "a municipal or other corporation," and that the Commissioners are "the corporate or constituted authorities," thereof, and therefore they are within the very letter of the statute. Both the propositions from which this deduction is made are denied by the plaintiffs. According to them the county is not a corporation, and if it were, the County Board is a part of its constituted authorities, without whose consent no such contract as the one proposed can be lawfully made.

Assuming for the present, that the county is a corporation within the meaning of the Act, we will consider whether the Commissioners have the authority to make this subscription, and to create this debt without the consent of the County Board. That the consent and approbation of the County Board has not been obtained, is an admitted fact, and that the Commissioners design to proceed without regard to its opinion is plainly avowed.

The County Board was established by an Act of the Legislature, passed April 10, 1834, and is composed of the members for the time being of the Senate and House of Representatives from the city and county. The Act declares that without their consent it shall not be lawful for the Commissioners to levy any tax or to borrow any money. By another Act passed June 16th, 1836, it was provided not only that the consent of the County Board should be required to authorize every loan, but also that it should regulate the terms and manner of taking such loan, and that no part of the proceeds should be paid out except in pursuance of specific appropriations to be made by it. These statutes are perfectly plain. No man can read them without understanding them, and all men must understand them alike. If they were not void for want of power in the legislature to pass them, and if they still stand unrepealed, the intended action of the Commissioners is as clear a violation of their duty as can well be conceived. They design upon their own authority and against the will of the County Board to...