Ravenelle v. City Of Woonsocket

• Decision Date: 01 August 1947
• Docket Number: No. 1758.,1758.
• Citation: 54 A.2d 376
• Parties: RAVENELLE et al. v. CITY OF WOONSOCKET et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

54 A.2d 376

RAVENELLE et al.

v.CITY OF WOONSOCKET et al.

No. 1758.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Aug. 1, 1947.

Appeal from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Charles A. Walsh, Judge.

Bill in equity by Alphonse W. Ravenelle and others, against the City of Woonsocket and others, to have action of the City Council of Woonsocket authorizing the sale and conveyance of certain real estate by the city declared void, and for other incidental relief. From a decree denying and dismissing the bill, complainants appeal.

Appeal denied and dismissed, decree appealed from affirmed, and cause remanded.

Irving I. Zimmerman, of Woonsocket, for complainants.

Nickerson H. Taylor, City Sol., and Higgins & Silverstein, both of Woonsocket, for respondents.

BAKER, Justice.

This is a bill in equity in which the complainants pray that the action of the city council of Woonsocket taken at its meeting on May 13, 1946, whereby it authorized the sale and conveyance of certain real estate by said city at a given price, be declared to be null and void, and for other incidental relief. After a hearing in the superior court on bill, answer and proof a decree was entered denying and dismissing the bill. From the entry of that decree the complainants prosecuted their appeal to this court.

The complainants are six citizens and taxpayers of the city of Woonsocket, in this state, who bring the bill on behalf of themselves and other citizens and taxpayers of that city. The respondents are the city of Woonsocket, a municipal corporation, and the prospective purchaser of the real estate in question.

The complainants in substance contend that the above-mentioned sale, in view of proceedings taken under a previous bill of complaint, was not made in good faith and was not free from fraud upon the taxpayers of that city, in that no notice of the intended sale was given either to the public or to the individual members of the city council; that no requests for bids for the property were made; and that the price at which it was to be sold was insignificant and at most less than half of its real value. The respondents, on the other hand, maintain that the action of the city council was authorized by Public Laws 1946, chapter 1798, and that the proceeding was lawful and proper. The complainants argue that chap. 1798 is unconstitutional and that the action taken under it was invalid.

It appears from the evidence that the property in question, comprising slightly over four acres, was located on the outskirts of Woonsocket and was known as the Poor Farm. This property was sold to the respondent Florence I. Lefrancois on May 31, 1945 for $4,000 at a sale by public auction, 30 or 40 persons being present and several bids being made, of which the said respondent's was the highest. At this sale, which was authorized by the city council, two other parcels of land were also sold by the city, and the sale was advertised by several insertions in a public newspaper. The other parcels were advertised by metes and bonds but the property involved herein was described solely by plat and lot number, and as so advertised included an adjoining public park known as Dunn Park. After the sale the respondent purchaser paid $4,000 to the city and received from it a duly executed deed including only the poor farm property described by metes and bounds, together with the improvements thereon. This deed was dated June 26, 1945 and was recorded in the records of land evidence in the city of Woonsocket.

Not long thereafter these complainants brought a bill in equity against the present respondents, at that time asking in substance for the same general relief as is prayed for in the present bill, but as applying only to the deed of June 26, 1945. That earlier bill was continued from time to time on the trial calendar of the superior court until the cause was finally assigned for hearing to May 14, 1946. On that date, with the consent of all parties, a decree was entered, from which no appeal was taken, granting the prayers of said bill and declaring the deed of June 26, 1945 null and void. That decree was entered because of certain holdings in our opinion in Buckhout v. City of Newport, 68 R.I. 280, 27 A.2d 317, 141 A.L.R. 1440, in relation to the power of a municipality to convey and transfer public property. That earlier bill, therefore, was disposed of favorably to the complainants.

However, in the meantime while said bill was pending, chap. 1798, P.L.1946, was passed by the general assembly and became law April 25, 1946. This chapter reads in part as follows: ‘Section 1. In addition to the powers heretofore granted by charter or the public laws of the state with respect to the purchase and sale of land, the city council of any city * * * if it shall see fit so to do, is hereby authorized, from time to time, to sell, lease, convey or use for any other public or municipal purpose or purposes, or for any purpose whatsoever, any lands or properties owned by said city, which have been purchased, acquired, used or dedicated in any manner for municipal or other public purposes, whenever, in the opinion of said city council * * * said lands or properties have become unsuitable or have ceased to be used for such purposes. Sec. 2. Nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize the sale, lease or conveyance of lands or improvements acquired by gift or devise for the public use, whether or not such gift or devise is subject to a condition subsequent or...