Lester v. Mayor and Aldermen City of Jackson

• Decision Date: 23 May 1892
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: JAMES T. LESTER v. MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF JACKSON

11 So. 114

69 Miss. 887

JAMES T. LESTER v. MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF JACKSON

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 23, 1892

FROM the chancery court of the first district of Hinds county HON. H. C. CONN, Chancellor.

The case is stated in the opinion.

Decree affirmed.

Anselm H. Jayne, for appellant,

Filed a lengthy brief and written argument, discussing the several grounds upon which the right of the city to take the devise is sought to be sustained, and, as to the question passed on by the court, making the following points:

If the city, for municipal purposes, is authorized to take land, by purchase or devise, within its limits, it clearly has no power, either express under its charter, or implied, to take land outside of the city limits. 2 Dillon on Mun. Corp. § 565 and cases cited; 15 Am. & Eng. Enc. L., 1060, and cases cited in note 1; 57 Mich. 547.

The use of lands without the city limits for a public park is not a city purpose, and the city could not take under the devise without previous legislative authority to acquire and hold it, as was the case in 99 N.Y. 569, and 44 Mich. 602. The fact that the land in this case is suitable for a park for the city of Jackson, has nothing to do with the law of the case.

Nugent & McWillie, on the same side.

It is admitted that the power to take land beyond its limits is not granted by the charter of the city of Jackson. Without express authority, a municipality cannot acquire lands beyond its territorial limits. 15 Am. & Eng. Enc. L., 1060; 2 Dillon, Mun. Corp., § 565; 9 N.Y. 64; 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 109; 2 Johns. Ch., 320, 336; 8 Ohio (N. S.), 564; 36 Mich 474; 44 Mich. 602; 57 Mich. 547; 2 La. An., 897; 2 Metc. (Ky.), 171; 17 N.H. 465.

The city is entirely without the power to make any expenditure of its corporate funds to carry out the purpose of the donor. The very name, "park," implies improvement and ornamentation, and the care and attention and exercise of police power by keepers and custodians. The city cannot effectuate the purpose of the gift, since the land lies without its limits.

Brame & Alexander, for appellee.

A municipal corporation, without special delegation of power, may acquire and hold property for all proper municipal purposes. A park is a city purpose, and it is none the less a city purpose because outside the corporate limits, if it be convenient and accessible. It is a matter of common knowledge that cities universally own and maintain parks. They are necessities rather than luxuries. Ordinarily, the acquisition of a park without the limits would be a more appropriate exercise of the city's power than to acquire land for a park within the city limits.

We concede the general rule stated in Dillon on Mun. Cor., § 565, that cities cannot ordinarily purchase and hold land without the corporate limits, but in the same section the author adds that for certain purposes, such as cemeteries, etc., extra territorial land may be purchased. If a park is a city purpose, the corporation has the implied power to acquire and hold it. 2 Dillon on Mun. Corp., § 562; 13 Mass. 371; 20 Mo. 148; 57 Am. Dec., 409 and note; 33 Ib., 481. Exercising police power over it is another matter.

As to what constitutes a city purpose, we especially refer the court to the case of Matter of Application of Mayor, etc., 99 N.Y. 571.

There is a wide difference between the power of a city to purchase land and its power to take a bounty. A city may be the beneficiary of a devise for a proper municipal purpose. 2 Dillon, Mun. Cor., § 566.

Argued orally by A. H. Jayne, T. A. McWillie, and E. E. Baldwin, for appellant, and by L. Brame and C. H. Alexander, for appellee.

OPINION

COOPER, J.

By her will, Mrs. Ellen L. Moore devised her late residence "Oakwood," to her father, Preston Hay, and to her brother-in-law, James T. Lester, for life, with remainder to the city of Jackson "for a public park." Since the death of the testatrix, Mrs. Lester, her sister and the wife of James T. Lester, has died childless and intestate, and Mr. Lester is entitled to take, by inheritance from her; whatever estate she inherited from Mrs. Moore. Mrs. Moore's will contained no residuary clause, and she died intestate as to the reversion in fee in "Oakwood," Unless the devise to the city is valid.

"Oakwood," containing about thirty-five acres, is situated just without the city limits, and appellant, Lester,...