Moore v. City of Nampa
| Decision Date | 09 April 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 384,384 |
| Citation | 276 U.S. 536,72 L.Ed. 688,48 S.Ct. 340 |
| Parties | MOORE v. CITY OF NAMPA |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. M. P. Tallmadge and George L. Nye, both of Denver, Colo., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 537 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner sued in the United States court for the district of Idaho to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of respondent's negligence and false representations in respect of certain local improvement bonds. Respondent demurred to the complaint; the District Court held that it failed to state a cause of action and dismissed the case. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 18 F.(2d) 860. The petition to this court for a writ of certiorari stated that the decision below conflicts with the decisions of this court and of the Circuit Courts of Appeals for the Third and Eighth Circuits. 1 The writ was granted. 275 U. S. 515, 48 S. Ct. 38, 72 L. Ed. —.
Respondent created a district for the construction of a sewer to be paid for by assessments against the lands therein according to resulting benefits. The statutes require the city engineer to make estimates of the cost of such improvements, provide that no contract shall be made for any work for a price in excess of the estimate, and direct the city council to pass an ordinance defining the boundaries of the district, describing the work, and showing the estimated cost. Idaho C. S. 1919, §§ 3879 and 4129. The engineer's estimate was $118,300. Assessments were made for that amount; and, pursuant to ordinance adopted December 6, 1920, bonds for $117,000 were issued. The validity of these is not questioned. It was found that the estimate was too low, and an ordinance was passed stating that the assessments first made were not sufficient to pay the cost and expenses of the work. Additional assessments amounting to $49,500 were made; and, pursuant to ordinance of January 10, 1921, respondent executed and, on March 8, 1921, delivered to a purchaser additional bonds for $43,000. On that day the mayor, clerk, and treasurer of respondent issued a certificate under its seal stating that no litigation was pending or threatened in respect of the creation of the district, the construction of the sewer, or the issue of the bonds.
A transcript of the proceedings and that certificate were submitted to the attorneys, who are acting for petitioner in this case, for examination as to the validity of the bonds. And they, it is alleged, relying upon the recitals in the bonds and the statements in the certificate, gave a written opinion that the bonds were valid. The complaint alleges that on July 13, 1921, petitioner, relying upon such recitals, certificate, and opinion, purchased three of these bonds. And petitioner says that the statement in the certificate was material because no suit to enjoin the making of special assessments or to set them aside may be brought after the expiration of thirty days from the making of the assessment. Section 4137, C. S. 1919. The certificate was false. One Lucas, an owner of property in the district, had brought suit against the city and its officers to have the assessments in excess of the engineer's estimate declared illegal and to enjoin their collection. The trial court granted the relief sought; the Supreme Court held that the city was limited and bound by the original estimate and affirmed the judgment. Lucas v. City of Nampa, 41 Idaho, 35, 238 P. 288. Petitioner avers that under this decision his bonds are worthless.
He insists that respondent was negligent in failing to have a proper estimate and valid assessments made and in causing the false certificate to be issued, and that the damages claimed were caused by the negligence and misrepresentation. The suit is for tort. The demurrer was rightly sustained, unless the complaint shows that a breach by respondent of some duty it owed petitioner caused the damage claimed.
Each bond states that respondent acknowledges itself to be indebted and promises to pay bearer the sum stated; it contains recitals to the effect that all the things by law required in respect of the creation of the district, the construction of the sewer, and the issue of the bond in order to make it a valid obligation of the city have been done. It states that the total cost of the work has been assessed, and that the assessments are liens upon the land; that provision has been made for, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henning v. City of Casper
...cases in which the statutes involved are practically identical with those in the case at bar are: Broad v. City of Moscow, supra; Moore v. Nampa, supra; Farrell v. City, supra; City v. Foster, supra. Appellant cites a number of cases in which recovery was allowed. A thorough examination of ......
-
Munro v. City of Albuquerque (two Cases).
...9 Cir., 258 F. 190, and said that they preferred to follow the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Moore v. City of Nampa, 276 U.S. 536, 48 S.Ct. 340, 72 L.Ed. 688 and the court went on to quote the language of Judge Gilbert in his opinion for the Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth C......
-
Cruzen v. Boise City
... ... legislature under the improvement district code. (Broad v ... City of Moscow, supra; Moore v. City of Nampa, 18 ... F.2d 860, affirmed in 276 U.S. 536, 48 S.Ct. 340, 72 L.Ed ... 688; Gagnon v. City of Butte, 75 Mont. 279, 243 P ... ...
-
Bosworth v. Anderson
... ... Under C. S., secs. 3097, 3211-3219, 3223, 3224, 3227, 3331, ... lien of county and city taxes is same as that of state taxes, ... and they are of same priority ... 3 ... numerous instances to the same effect. ( Moore v ... Nampa , 18 F.2d 860; Moore v. Nampa , 276 U.S ... 536, 48 S.Ct. 340, 72 L.Ed. 688; ... ...