London & N.Y. Land Co. v. City of Jellico

• Decision Date: 04 October 1899
• Citation: 52 S.W. 995,103 Tenn. 320
• Parties: LONDON & N.Y. LAND CO. v. CITY OF JELLICO.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

52 S.W. 995

103 Tenn. 320

LONDON & N.Y. LAND CO. v. CITY OF JELLICO.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

October 4, 1899

Appeal from chancery court, Campbell county; H. B. Lindsay Chancellor.

Suit by the London & New York Land Company against the city of Jellico. A decree of the chancery court dismissing the bill was reversed by the court of chancery appeals, which entered a decree for complainant. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J. E Johnston and H. K. Trammell, for appellant.

E. H Powers and Ingersoll & Peyton, for appellee.

CALDWELL J.

The London & New York Land Company brought this bill against the city of Jellico to recover a certain sum of money for grading one of defendant's streets, under a contract made for that purpose. The chancellor dismissed the bill, but the court of chancery appeals reversed his action, and pronounced a decree in favor of the complainant for $476.86. The principal defense interposed by the city is rested upon the fact that the contract under which the grading was done was made at a special meeting of the board of mayor and aldermen called without notice to some of the aldermen, and held in their absence. The result of the authorities upon the subject is that, as a general rule, every member of a municipal council is entitled to reasonable notice of special meetings, and that no important action can lawfully be taken at such meeting unless such notice has first been given, or unless the members not notified actually attend and participate in the business of the meeting. 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. (4th Ed.) §§ 263, 286; 1 Beach, Pub. Corp. § 271; 15 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 1035; Lord v. City of Anoka, 36 Minn. 176, 30 N.W. 550; Beaver Creek v. Hastings, 52 Mich. 528, 18 N.W. 250; Supervisors v. Horton, 75 Iowa, 271, 39 N.W. 394; Poola & F. R. Ry. Co. v. Commissioners of Anderson Co., 16 Kan. 302; People v. Batchelor, 22 N.Y. 128; Harding v. Vandewater, 40 Cal. 77; Stow v. Wyse, 7 Conn. 214. The present contract was confessedly subject to this general rule, and, being so, it was undoubtedly invalid, and, nothing else appearing, the complainant would inevitably be repelled from court.

There is another aspect of the case, however, that demands the consideration of the court. The contract was fair and reasonable in its terms, and was within the scope of the powers conferred upon the council for the improvement of streets. It soon became known to the members of the council who permitted it to go unrescinded and unchallenged, and allowed the complainant to continue the work through several months to completion, in the belief that all was satisfactory, and with the unquestionable result of large and permanent advantage to the municipality. Having thus received benefits for which the council might well have contracted in a proper meeting, the city will not now be heard to deny liability therefor. In such a case, liability arises by implication of law, and payment must be made according to the benefits received. The law, which always...