Carr v. City of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 31 January 1845
• Citation: 9 Mo. 191
• Parties: CARR v. THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

9 Mo. 191

CARR

v.THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1845.

ERROR TO ST. LOUIS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

SCOTT, J.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by Carr, against the city of St. Louis, for fees due him as recorder of the said city. The fees accrued in suits brought by the city of St. Louis against sundry defendants, in which suits the city of St. Louis recovered judgments against the defendants, which proved unavailing, in consequence of their insolvency, and from other causes. The fees claimed are those which are due for services rendered at the instance of the city in the prosecutions of the said suits. There was an ordinance of the city in force at the time these services were rendered, which declared that in cases like those in which the fees are claimed, the city should not be liable for any costs. An act amending the charter of the city of St. Louis, and creating the office of recorder, in force during the time the services were performed, declares that there shall be a recorder, who shall have jurisdiction throughout the corporate limits of the city, and shall be a conservator of the peace, and shall have all the powers and jurisdiction now vested in justices of the peace, and who shall receive the same fees for the like services. Acts 1841, p. 136, § 22. A previous portion of said act gives to the city council authority to fix the compensation of all city officers. Acts 1841, p. 133, § 1.

The question is, whether under the foregoing statement of facts, Carr, the recorder, is entitled to recover for the services for which the suit is brought? It is a well settled principle of law, that the by-laws of a corporation must not be repugnant to its charter; the charter creates an artificial being, defines its powers, designates the purposes of its institution, and points out its mode of action. It is the fundamental law of the corporation, and is as a constitution to the body acting under and by it. Hence, all by-laws in contravention of it are void. Was the act of the city council, denying fees to the recorder in particular cases, inconsistent with its charter? The act creating the office of recorder gave him the powers and jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, and the same fees for like services. It appears from the agreed case, that the services were rendered for the city in suits brought by her. It will not be pretended that if similar services had been rendered for an individual, he would not have been compelled...