Mayor And Council Of Rome v. Cabot

• Decision Date: 31 March 1859
• Citation: 28 Ga. 50
• Parties: MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF ROME. vs. CABOT.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

28 Ga. 50

MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF ROME. vs. CABOT.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

MARCH TERM, 1859.

In Equity, from Floyd county. Decision by Judge Hammond, at chambers.

This was a bill filed by F. M. Cabot, John H. Towers, and Cunningham M. Pennington, for and in behalf of themselves, and others, citizens of the city of Rome, and owners of real estate and tax-payers in said city, against the Mayor and Council of the said city, and Noble, Brothers & Co., to enjoin and restrain said Mayor and Council from consummating a contract with said Noble, Brothers & Co., for the erection of water-works in the said city; or if said contract has been made, then, to annul and rescind the same, and to enjoin said Mayor and Council from issuing the bonds of said city for and in payment of said water-works.

The bill states that said city is situated in the fork of two large rivers, and is well supplied with water, and that there is no necessity for the erection of said waterworks; and charges that said Council have let out said contract and are erecting said water-works, from sinister and corrupt motives, one of their number being the contractor for the construction of said works. That it will involve a heavy outlay and devolve upon said city a heavy debt, to be paid by taxes to be imposed upon the property of complainants; and that said Mayor and Council have no authority under the charter of said city, and the lawsof the State, to incur said indebtedness, or to impose the taxes necessary to its payment.

The injunction was granted agreeably to the prayer of the bill.

Defendants, the Mayor and Council of the city of Rome, answered the bill, denying any improper, corrupt or fraudulent purpose in the effort to construct said waterworks. That the question was submitted to a vote of the citizens and tax-payers of said city, and a majority were in favor of having said works constructed. That there is a great necessity for the erection of water-works in said city. They submit the question of their power and authority to the judgment of the court, and move that the injunction be dissolved, on the grounds,

1st. Because there is no equity in complainants' bill, and said injunction should never have been granted.

2d. Because, if there was any equity in said bill, the same has been fully denied and sworn off by the answer.

The Chancellor overruled the motion to dissolve the injunction, and defendants excepted.

D. S. Printup, and T. W. Alexander, for plaintiff in error.

...