Port Huron v. McCall
Decision Date | 12 October 1881 |
Citation | 46 Mich. 565,10 N.W. 23 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Parties | PORT HURON v. MCCALL. |
Under the provision in the charter of Port Huron which empowers the common council to "issue new bonds for the refunding of bonds and evidences of indebtedness already issued," the common council may issue new bonds to raise money for the satisfaction of judgments.
Municipal powers are to be construed strictly; but the reason for strictness has little application when they are of a nature to concern no one but the people of the municipality; as for example, when they relate merely to a change in the form of municlpal indebtedness. The question in such a case is, what was probably the legislative intent in granting a power?
If a city has obtained money on a particular construction of a power, and then adopts a different construction to avoid payment, it is proper to give some weight to the first construction, if the question is one of doubt.
Error to St. Clair.
Charles. K. Dodge and A.E. Chadwick, for plaintiff in error.
Albert McCall, for defendant in error.
To an understanding of this case a brief summary of the facts is essential. Under certain legislative acts purporting to empower the city of Port Huron to grant municipal aid to the Port Huron & Lake Michigan Railroad, the city subscribed a large sum to the stock of the company engaged in building that road, and issued bonds for the amount of the subscription. These bonds were negotiable, and soon passed from the railroad company into the hands of purchasers. Subsequently to these issues, in the case of People v Township Board of Salem, 20 Mich. 452, this court decided that it was incompetent under the constitution of the state to pass acts empowering municipalities to grant aid to railroads. Notwithstanding that decision the municipalities which had issued bonds in conformity with the invalid legislation, generally recognized their obligation to provide payment, and proceeded to do so without dissent on the part of their people. In some cases suits were brought in the federal courts and recovery had. In some other cases suits were brought in the state courts and judgments allowed to pass by default or on confession. In Port Huron the controlling sentiment seems to have favored the payment without question, of the bonds the city had issued, and some of them were put into judgment in state and federal courts without contest. In January, 1875, the city attorney was instructed by a vote of the common council to confess judgment in all suits brought upon the bonds.
I think we are agreed that the question of the original validity of the bonds which have been put in judgment is now wholly unimportant. The good faith of the city authorities in suffering the judgments to be taken is not impugned, and they stand unquestioned. We are, therefore, excused from any discussion of some of the points made.
The charter of the city was revised in the year 1869. One section of the revision is as follows:
"No loan or other evidence of debt not expressly authorized by this act, or by any act hereby continued in force, shall be made or issued by the common council or any officer of the corporation: provided, however, that the common council may issue new bonds for the refunding of bonds and evidences of debt already issued, and the proper officer of the corporation may draw and issue orders on the treasury for the necessary and current expenses of the city." Laws 1869, vol. 3, p. 1554.
Under the assumed authority of this provision of the charter, the common council in October, 1874, voted to sell 8 per cent bonds, at a price not below par, for the payment of judgments on railroad aid bonds, and proposals for the bonds were invited by public notices. In the following month the interest offered was increased to 10 per cent., and proposals were then received and bonds issued from time to time to the amount in all of $80,000 and upwards. The money received for these bonds was paid into the city treasury, and was used to satisfy judgments rendered upon the railroad aid bonds. The charter of the city was again revised in 1877, and the following are the provisions which bear upon the issue of bonds:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Keokuk Water Works Co. v. City of Keokuk
... ... indisputably settled." Likewise, the rule is stated by ... Judge Cooley in City of Port Huron v. McCall, 46 ... Mich. 565-574, 10 N.W. 23, 26, in these words: " There ... is a ... ...
-
Council of City of Hamtramck v. Matulewicz
...obligation does not change its purpose. Refunding bonds already issued is a change merely in the form of the obligation. Port Huron v. McCall, 46 Mich. 565, 10 N.W. 23. Such refunding bonds are not a new indebtedness. Hirt v. City of Erie, 200 Pa. 223, 49 A. 796;Vaughn v. City of Corbin, 21......
-
Eagle v. Fencing District No. 2
...by the law or necessarily implied can be exercised by the commissioners. 58 Ark. 270; 23 Pick. 74; 1 Dillon, Mun. Corp. § 463; 7 O. 411; 46 Mich. 565; 59 Ark. 344; 61 Ark. 74; 67 Ark. 413; Ark. 229. The contract of the officers being unauthorized, the doctrine of estoppel can not apply agai......
-
Bowler v. Nagel
...can be sustained by implied power. Being in doubt, we should hold the power does not exist. Crofut v. Danbury, supra; Port Huron v. McCall, 46 Mich. 565, 10 N. W. 23; 28 Cyc. 265. In the last citation it is said: ‘Where a particular power is claimed for a municipal corporation, and particul......