Fox v. City of Pasadena

• Citation: 78 F.2d 948
• Decision Date: 26 August 1935
• Docket Number: No. 7672.,7672.
• Parties: FOX et al. v. CITY OF PASADENA.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

78 F.2d 948 (1935)

FOX et al. v. CITY OF PASADENA.^*

No. 7672.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

August 26, 1935.

Roscoe R. Hess, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants.

Harold P. Huls, City Atty., and John W. Holmes, Deputy City Atty., both of Pasadena, Cal., for appellee.

Before WILBUR, DENMAN, and MATHEWS, Circuit Judges.

WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs, who were nonresidents of California, filed a bill in equity against the city of Pasadena, a municipal corporation of the state of California, hereinafter called the "City," on behalf of themselves and all other nonresident taxpayers within Municipal Improvement District No. 3 in the City of Pasadena. The defendant moved to dismiss the action upon several grounds; among others, upon the ground that the facts stated in the bill of complaint did not constitute a cause of action, and also because such facts showed laches. The court granted the motion on the ground of laches. The appeal is taken from the decree of dismissal.

The bill of complaint occupies 62 pages of the printed transcript. The appellants allege that the City and its officers have misapplied funds derived from the sale of bonds of the municipal improvement district. The purpose sought to be accomplished by this suit, as evidenced by the prayer of the complaint, is to have the court direct the officers of the City to pay into the sinking, or interest and redemption fund established by law for the payment of bonds of the district, various sums of money alleged to have been improperly expended by the officers of the City in connection with the construction of the improvements within said Municipal Improvement District No. 3, for which the bonds were issued. Included in the money sought to be thus transferred from the funds of the City are certain sums collected by the City on the official bonds of some of the city officials who were guilty of the misappropriation of said funds.

The municipal improvement district in question has no corporate entity. It is simply a district defined by the city authorities of Pasadena as the district to be subjected to the cost of certain improvements therein. The money for the improvement was derived from the sale of bonds issued by the City. The bonds were to be paid by levying taxes upon the property within the district to meet the interest and installments of principal as they came due. The complaint alleges that the burden upon the taxpayers owning real estate within the district has been increased by reason of the malfeasance of the City and its officers. The allegation of the complaint is that these wrongs were committed by the City, through its officers, in that the officers failed to comply with the law in regard to the expenditures for the improvements.

When this case came on for argument, it was suggested to counsel that the action was in effect one in mandamus and that the federal courts had no power in original proceedings to issue writs of mandamus. See Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 2 L. Ed. 60; McIntire v. Wood, 7 Cranch, 504, 3 L. Ed. 420; Heine v. Board of Levee Com'rs, 19 Wall. (86 U. S.) 655, 22 L. Ed. 223; Greene County v. Daniel, 102 U. S. 187, 26 L. Ed. 99; North Carolina Public Service Co. v. Southern Power Co. (C. C. A.) 282 F. 837. Supplementary briefs were filed in pursuance of the suggestion of the court and the City now takes the position that the proceedings, in effect, is one in mandamus as to which the district court had no jurisdiction. In determining this jurisdictional question it is necessary to divide the many claims of the plaintiffs-appellants into separate groups or classifications and examine these groups separately.

The claims in the complaint may be divided into four distinct classifications: The first, dealing with the alleged responsibility of the City for the torts of its officers in misapplying the funds derived from the sale of bonds; the second, which is like unto it, dealing with unauthorized expenditures made for the improvement of what is alleged to be private property; the third, dealing with money, $2,900.20, which has been paid into the treasury of the City by the bondsmen of the officers who were guilty of misapplying the funds of the district, and which has been withheld from the contractor on account of failure to properly perform the work. This latter amount, $13,213.01, is now involved in litigation between the contractor and the City. The fourth, dealing with the duty of the City to reimburse the funds of the district for expenditures made from the funds of the district for street crossing improvements for which it is alleged that the City itself is liable.

With reference to the first two classifications, it is well settled in California that a city is not liable for the misconduct of its officials when acting in a governmental capacity. Wallner v. Barry, 207 Cal. 465, 472, 279 P. 148; Kellar v. City of Los Angeles, 179 Cal. 605, 178 P. 505; Municipal Bond Co. v. City of Riverside, 138 Cal. App. 267, 32 P.(2d) 661. The wrongs complained of were committed by the officials of the City and not by the City itself. No cause of action is stated against the City by showing that its officers were guilty of misconduct. It would certainly be a novel proposition for the taxpayers of the City to sue the City to recover a judgment against the City for the amounts that have been embezzled or misappropriated by a public official from the funds of the City. In California a taxpayer of a city may...