Trustees of Belleview v. Hohn

• Decision Date: 08 March 1884
• Citation: 82 Ky. 1,5 Ky.L.Rptr. 730
• Parties: Trustees of Belleview v. Hohn, & c.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

82 Ky. 1

5 Ky.L.Rptr. 730

Trustees of Belleview v. Hohn, & c.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 8, 1884

Appellants, trustees of Belleview, made a contract with appellees for the improvement of certain streets in that town. The latter agreed that, in any event, they would not look to the town for compensation. It was afterwards decided that appellants had no power to make such a contract, and that the lot owners were not liable to pay for the work. Held --

1. There is no implied promise on the part of appellants to pay for the work, upon the ground that the lot owners never were liable.

2. If the town is to be made liable by reason of its inherent power to improve streets, such power must exist with reference to all improvements for its benefit.

3. Corporations can not be held liable upon implied promises by reason of benefits received.

4. Facts must be averred showing that the ordinance was made by appellants in conformity with their charter.

APPEAL FROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT.

T. P MCKIBBEN AND NELSON & WASHINGTON FOR APPELLANTS.

No brief.

CRAWFORD & DUCKER FOR APPELLEES.

No brief.

OPINION

PRYOR JUDGE:

This action is based on a written contract, alleged to have been made with the trustees of the town of Belleview and the appellees, for the improvement of certain streets within that town.

By the terms of the contract, the appellees agreed and bound themselves not to look to the town, in any event, for the payment of the money for the work to be performed and recovered, as we infer in the court below, by reason of the averment in their petition or reply that the contract was entered into with the express understanding that the appellants, the trustees of the town, would take such steps as would make the property holders liable. By the original contract, they were to look alone to the abutting property holders for their pay, and not to the defendants. It is also alleged that the town received the work and must therefore pay for it, as the owners of the abutting property were not responsible.

In a proceeding heretofore in this court in the case of Doyle and others, against the trustees of the town, this court held that the trustees had no power to cause the improvements to be made at the cost of the owners of the adjacent property, and that the proceedings by the trustees to subject such property under special averments made for that purpose, were null and void.

The appellees, who performed the work, are now insisting upon their right to recover of the city, because the trustees had no authority to make such a contract. The doctrine recognized in the case of Murphy v. the City of Louisville, 9 Bush which follows all the modern authorities in regard to contracts entered into by municipal corporations, must be regarded as decisive of this case. " It is a fundamental principle," says Judge Dillon, " that all persons contracting with a municipal corporation must, at their peril, inquire into the power of the corporation, or its officers, to make...