Raff v. City of Philadelphia
| Decision Date | 15 January 1917 |
| Docket Number | 2466 |
| Citation | 256 Pa. 312,100 A. 815 |
| Parties | Raff v. Philadelphia et al |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
January 3, 1917, Reargued
Bill in equity, original jurisdiction, Miscellaneous Docket No. 3 No. 188, to enjoin defendants from erecting a convention hall, in case of Harry Raff, a citizen and taxpayer of the City of Philadelphia, in his own behalf and in behalf of such citizens and taxpayers of said city as may join herein, v City of Philadelphia; Thomas B. Smith, Mayor; George E Datesman, Director, Department of Public Works; John M Walton, City Controller, and William McCoach, City Treasurer of the City of Philadelphia. Injunction granted.
Bill in equity for an injunction. Original jurisdiction.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
J. Washington Logue, for plaintiff. -- The city had no right to enter into a contract for the erection of the convention hall at a cost exceeding the cost advertised in the election notices at which the loan for the raising of the money was authorized: Wakelin et al. v. Philadelphia et al., 21 Pa. D.R. 39; Major v. Aldan Boro., 209 Pa. 247.
John P. Connelly, City Solicitor, with him Ernest Lowengrund, Assistant City Solicitor, for defendants. -- The loan which the electors authorized the city to raise was not for the purpose of completing, but for the purpose of initiating the work.
Before BROWN, C.J., MESTREZAT, POTTER, STEWART, MOSCHZISKER, FRAZER and WALLING, JJ.
In pursuance of an ordinance approved April 21, 1911, the municipal authorities of the City of Philadelphia submitted to its electors the question of an increase of its indebtedness in the sum of $9,750,000, which embraced, inter alia, an item of $1,500,000 "for the erection of a convention hall." The election was held May 23, 1911, and a majority of the electors voted for the proposed increase. In the notice of the election, and on the ballots furnished to the voters, the item of $1,500,000 was said to be "for the erection of a convention hall." On June 19, 1911, the mayor of the city was authorized, by ordinance, to borrow on its faith and credit the sum of $9,750,000, including the $1,500,000 "for the erection of a convention hall." By an ordinance approved February 18, 1916, he was authorized to enter into a contract or contracts, on behalf of the city, for the erection of a convention hall, the cost not to exceed $1,418,000, the balance of the $1,500,000 which had been appropriated for that purpose. By ordinance approved April 12, 1916, an election was directed to be held May 16, 1916, for the purpose of having the electors pass upon the question of an additional increase of the city's indebtedness in the sum of $47,425,000. The election was in favor of the increase. Among the items embraced in it was one providing for the borrowing of $20,000 "toward the erection of a convention hall, supplementing money borrowed under ordinance approved June 19th, 1911." In the notice of the election, and upon the ballots furnished to the electors, the item of $20,000 was so described. By ordinance approved October 16, 1916, the ordinance of February 18, 1916, authorizing the mayor to enter into a contract for the erection of a convention hall at a cost not to exceed $1,418,000, was amended, by removing the limit of the cost fixed by it and providing that the hall should be paid for from the sums remaining from funds which had been appropriated toward its erection, and from such moneys as might subsequently be appropriated for that purpose. Shortly thereafter an architect was employed, plans were prepared and an estimate of $2,225,000 was submitted as the cost of the proposed hall, and the city authorities were about to advertise for bids and enter into a contract or contracts for its erection at such approximate cost, when this bill -- of which we assumed original jurisdiction -- was filed by the plaintiff. It avers that the electors by their votes intended to and did limit the entire cost of the construction and erection of the convention hall to the sum of $1,520,000, which they authorized the city authorities to borrow and expend therefor; that the erection of a building at a greater cost than the said sum of $1,520,000 will be unlawful and in excess of the authority conferred by the electors of the city upon the municipal authorities, and that any contract or contracts of the city for the building of a hall, the total cost of which shall be more than the fixed limit, "will be illegal, ultra vires, null and void." The prayer is for an injunction to enjoin the municipal authorities from entering into a contract or contracts, on behalf of the city, for the erection in whole or in part of a convention hall, the total cost of which will exceed the unexpended balance of the amounts authorized by the electors to be borrowed therefor.
When the question of an increase of the indebtedness of a municipality is submitted to its electors in compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements, their votes are simply either "No increase of indebtedness," or "Debt may be increased." The purpose or purposes for the increase are for the municipal authorities when they express their desire for it: Barr & Yocum v. Philadelphia et al., 191 Pa. 438; Major v. Aldan Borough, 209 Pa. 247. But, while this is true, the authorities may not ask the electors to authorize the increase unless they comply with the statutory requirement that public notice of the election to be held on the question of the increase shall "contain a statement of the amount of the last assessed valuation, of the amount of the existing debt, of the amount and percentage of the proposed increase, and of the purposes for which the indebtedness is to be increased." This last clause is to enable the voter to act intelligently upon the question...
To continue reading
Request your trial