Katzenberger v. City of Aberdeen
Decision Date | 04 April 1887 |
Parties | KATZENBERGER and others, Partners, etc., v. CITY OF ABERDEEN. 1 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Calvin Perkins, for plaintiff in error.
E. O. Sykes and Baxter McFarlan, for defendant in error.
This is a suit brought against the city of Aberdeen, on the fourteenth of September, 1882, to recover the interest from May 1, 1874, to May 1, 1882, on 156 bonds of the city issued to the Memphis, Holly Springs, Okolona & Selma Railroad Company, under date of April 26, 1870. The alleged authority for the issue of the bonds is an amendment to the charter of the city, in November, 1858, as follows:
On the twenty-sixth of April, 1870, the mayor and selectmen of the city passed the following ordinance:
Pursuant to this ordinance the stock was subscribed and bonds issued. The bonds were in the usual form of negotiable coupon bonds, and contained the following recital: 'This bond is issued under and pursuant to the constitution and laws of the state of Mississippi, the charter of the city of Aberdeen, and ordinances passed by the mayor and selectmen of the city of Aberdeen on the twenty-sixth of April, A. D. 1870.'
The declaration states, in substance, the agreement for a subscription, as set forth in the ordinance, to be paid in bonds; the issue of bonds in accordance with this agreement; the purchase by the plaintiffs in March, 1874, of those the interest upon which is sued for, except that the 'seven coupons first maturing had at the time of such purchase been detached and paid and were not purchased;' and that none of the coupons for interest had been paid since. There is no averment that the levy of a tax to pay the subscription had ever been approved by the legal voters of the city. A demurrer to the declaration was sustained by the court below, and a judgment rendered thereon in favor of the city. To reverse that judgment this writ of error was brought.
In our opinion upon the facts stated in the declaration, the city had no authority to issue the bonds. The amendment of the charter, taken as a whole, shows clearly that the legislature did not intend to allow the city authorities to make a subscription which would bind the tax-payers for its payment by the levy of a tax, until the legal voters had approved of such a tax by a majority vote at an election held as other elections were held. As was said in Wells v. Supervisors, 102 U. S. 630, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
First Nat. Bank v. Obion County
...If any other authority be needed on this point, the cases above cited are ample, but in addition there are Katzenberger v. Aberdeen, 121 U. S. 172, 7 S. Ct. 947, 30 L. Ed. 911; German Savings Bank v. Franklin County, 128 U. S. 526, 9 S. Ct. 159, 32 L. Ed. 519; Lake County v. Graham, 130 U. ......
-
Bolton v. Wharton
...corporation with full legislative power, and make it superior to the laws by which it was created." Katzenberger v. Aberdeen (1887) 121 U. S. 172, 7 S. Ct. 947, 949, 30 L. Ed. 911. Or as the same court has expressed it in another case, "otherwise it would always be in the power of a municip......
-
Smith Bros. v. Williams
... ... L.Ed. 330, decided in 1926; State ex rel. v. Ball, ... 116 Tex. 527, 296 S.W. 1085. See City of Ft. Myers v ... State, 95 Fla. 704, 117 So. 99; Stewart v. Daytona, ... etc., 94 Fla. 859, ... Ocala, 83 Fla. 344, 91 So. 182; 12 C.J. 1094; 6 R. C. L ... page 321; Katzenberger v. Aberdeen, 121 U.S. 172, 7 ... S.Ct. 947, 30 L.Ed. 911; State v. Fla. Inland Nav ... Dist., ... ...
-
Weinberger v. Board of Public Instruction of St. Johns County
... ... constitutional provision, and hence void ab initio. In smith ... v. Mayor, etc., of the City of Dublin, 113 Ga. 833, 39 S.E ... 327, referred to in the Florida Case of Thompson v. Town of ... the people, as required by the Constitution (see ... Katzenberger v. Aberdeen, 121 U.S. 172, 7 S.Ct. 947, ... 30 L.Ed. 911; Sykes v. Columbus, 55 Miss. 115), or, ... ...