City of Shreveport v. Cole

• Decision Date: 07 January 1889
• Citation: 129 U.S. 36,32 L.Ed. 589,9 S.Ct. 210
• Parties: CITY OF SHREVEPORT v. COLE et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

9 S.Ct. 210

129 U.S. 36

32 L.Ed. 589

CITY OF SHREVEPORT v. COLE et al.

January 7, 1889.

Jacobs and Smith filed their petition in the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Louisiana, describing themselves as 'residents of Shreveport, Louisiana,' on the 11th day of February, 1882, against the city of Shreveport, 'a municipal corporation established by the state of Louisiana, situated in the parish of Caddo, in said state of Louisiana, and within said western district,' alleging it to be 'justly indebted to petitioner in the sum of forty-seven thousand four hundred and sixty-six 31-100 dollars, with five per cent. per annum interest from Nov. 19, 1871, as shown by itemized statement hereto annexed as part hereof,' upon a written contract annexed and made part of the petition, for the macadamizing of Commerce street in said city, whereby the city agreed to pay five 40-100 dollars for each square yard of macadamizing, and sixty-five cents per cubic yard for grading, which amounted, upon completion of the work, to ninety-eight thousand one hundred and ninety-two 49-100 dollars, in which amount the city became indebted to petitioners; and that the sum of thirteen thousand four hundred and seventy-six 32-100 dollars was paid thereon by property owners, and a warrant for three thousand two hundred and thirty-five 25-100 dollars unpaid tax was also received by petitioners, leaving the indebtedness eighty-one thousand four hundred and eighty-six 92-100 dollars; that by the terms of the contract the city obligated itself 'to pay the amount of its indebtedness arising thereunto out of funds realized from the collection of wharfage dues, to be received by petitioners when paid by or collected from steam-boats at the wharves of Shreveport, until the entire amount of such indebtedness under said contract was fully paid,' and had collected and paid over such wharfage dues up to December 20, 1878, to the amount of thirty-four thousand and fourteen 61-100 dollars, leaving a balance due of forty-seven thousand four hundred and sixty-six 31-100 dollars. The petition then proceeded as follows:

'Petitioners allege that since the 20th day of December A. D. 1878, steam-boats have arrived at the port of Shreveport from time to time up to present date, landed at the wharves of said city, and became thereby indebted for wharfage dues, collectible from such steam-boats, their masters and owners, amounting in the aggregate to a large sum, say twelve thousand dollars, which should have been collected and paid over to petitioners by said city; but your petitioners aver that since the 20th December, A. D. 1878, said city has failed, neglected, and refused to collect any wharfage dues from steamboats landing at its wharves, and has failed to pay petitioners the amount due them under said contract or any part thereof; that on the 15th February, A. D. 1879, and on sundry days before and since said date, petitioners made amicable demand on said city to comply with its obligations under said contract by collecting and paying over to petitioners said wharfage dues, which said demands were by said city utterly disregarded. Petitioners allege that in consequence of the neglect and refusal of said city to collect and pay over to them said wharfage, and by its default in complying with the terms of the said contract, the entire balance due thereunder, viz., said sum of forty-seven thousand four hundred and sixty-six 31-100 dollars, with interest, as hereinbefore claimed, became due by and exigible from said city. Petitioners allege amicable demand in vain. They allege further that the law of the state of Louisiana, so far as same had any bearing on or relation to the said contract between them and said city, and to the rights and obligations therefrom resulting, was by operation of law impliedly part of said contract, and there was an implied contract between said city and petitioners that, in event of failure on part of either of the contracting parties to comply with the terms of said contract, the obligations resulting from and under said contract might be judicially enforced; and that under provisions of the law of Louisiana existing at date of said contract petitioners had adequate remedies for the enforcement of their rights thereunder. But petitioners allege that article 208 of the constitution of the state of Louisiana, adopted July 23, A. D. 1879, and ratified by the people of said state on the first Tuesday of the month of December, A. D. 1879, has impaired the obligation of said contract by depriving your petitioners of all remedies for the enforcement of same, in this, viz., by limiting municipal taxation throughout said state for all purposes whatever to ten mills on the dollar of valuation. Petitioners represent that the assessed value of all property subject to tax by said city is one million eight hundred and fifty-three thousand eight hundred and twenty dollars; that the tax thereon, at rate of ten mills on the dollar, amounts to the sum of eighteen thousand five hundred and thirty-eight and 20-100 dollars; that the amount which the city is authorized to levy for license tax on trades, professions, and occupations does not exceed for any one year the sum of seventy-five hundred dollars. That said city has no property which can be seized under execution, and no revenues, except such as are derived from taxation; that the entire revenues of said city for any one year do not exceed the sum of thirty-one thousand dollars, an amount not more than sufficient for its alimony, and which must be appropriated for that purpose; and in consequence of said constitutional limitation, if same be valid and operative, no means exist under the law of Louisiana by which said city can raise funds wherewith to pay, or be compelled to pay, its just debts. Petitioners allege that article 208, so far as the same limits municipal taxation, is as to them null and void, because it violates the tenth section of the first article of the constitution of the United States, which prohibits the state of Louisiana with all other states from passing any law impairing the obligation of contracts. That they are entitled to have said article 208 of the constitution of the state of Louisiana declared null and void, so that they may have some remedy by means of which to compel said city to pay its indebtedness to them; that the case herein presented arises under the constitution of the United States, and that your honorable court has jurisdiction thereof.

The premises considered, petitioners pray that the city of Shreveport be cited to answer hereto; that after all legal notices and delays they have judgment against said city, declaring said article 208 of the constitution of the...