Tuttle Bros. & Bruce v. City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa
| Decision Date | 21 February 1910 |
| Docket Number | 3,117. |
| Parties | TUTTLE BROS. & BRUCE v. CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA, et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Syllabus by the Court.
A city had express power to approve and certify plats and to accept the dedication of, and to improve and repair, streets. It was its duty to approve and certify the plaintiffs' plat of a certain addition without compensation, but it declined to do so. Thereupon it covenanted to approve and certify the plat and to accept the dedication of and to grade the streets and alleys shown thereon, in consideration of the undertaking of the plaintiffs to pay it $2,250.
Municipal corporations have two classes of powers-- the one 'governmental,' in the exercise of which their officers may not bind the municipality beyond their terms of office; the other 'business,' or proprietary, in the exercise of which they are governed by the same rules as individuals or private corporations. A city exercises its business and not its governmental power in making a contract to accept the dedication of and to grade streets and alleys within its limits.
John N Hughes (John A. Reed, on the brief), for appellants.
John M Redmond and John D. Stewart, for appellees.
Before SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and RINER and WILLIAM H. MUNGER District Judges.
This is an appeal from a decree which sustained a demurrer to and dismissed the bill exhibited by H. O. Tuttle, R. B. Tuttle, and George Q. Bruce, partners as Tuttle Bros. & Bruce, to avoid a contract between them and the city of Cedar Rapids, and to enjoin the Cedar Rapids Savings Bank and J. M. Dinwiddie, its cashier, from paying to the city the sum of $2,250, which by the terms of the contract it was entitled to receive from them.
The bill disclosed these material facts: The complainants purchased a tract of land within the limits of the city of Cedar Rapids, platted it into lots, blocks, and streets, filed it with the city recorder, whose duties were those of the clerk of the city, and requested that the plat be considered and approved by the city council, and that the latter direct the mayor and recorder to certify the council's approval thereof, so that the plat could be recorded and lots could be sold according to it. Under the statutes of Iowa it was the legal duty of the city to approve this plat and to certify its approval to the recorder. Code Iowa 1897, Sec. 916; Giltner v. City of Albia, 128 Iowa, 658, 105 N.W. 194. The city council refused to approve and certify the plat, so that it could be recorded, and the complainants brought an action for a mandamus to compel it to do so. While this action was pending the complainants and the city entered into a written agreement to the effect that the Savings Bank, which was authorized to collect the selling price of the lots in the addition, should pay to the city $2,250 out of the first moneys which it received from such sales that should belong to the complainants, and that the city (1) would approve and certify the plat; (2) would accept the dedication of the streets, avenues, and alleys shown thereon; and (3) would establish grades of these streets, avenues, and alleys; would, within a reasonable time, expend the $2,250 in grading; and would grade at its own expense the streets, avenues, and alleys portrayed by the plat. When the bill was filed the Savings Bank had collected from the sales of the lots $2,250, which belonged to the complainant, the city had approved and certified the plat, but it had not performed its contract in any other respect.
Counsel for the complainants insist that the contract here in question is voidable, and that its performance should be enjoined, because, as they aver, it was without consideration. To the answer that one covenant or promise is a lawful consideration for another, and that for the covenant of the complainants to cause the $2,250 to be paid to the city the latter agreed (1) to approve and certify the plat (2) to accept the dedication of the streets...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gardner v. City of Dallas
...v. Irrigation Co., 118 Tex. 154, 12 S.W.(2d) 546; Griffin v. Oklahoma Nat. Gas Corporation (C.C.A.) 37 F.(2d) 545; Tuttle Bros. & Bruce v. Cedar Rapids (C. C.A.) 176 F. 86; Omaha Water Co. v. Omaha (C.C.A.) 147 F. 1, 12 L.R.A.(N.S.) 736, 8 Ann.Cas. 614; 3 McQuillin Munic. Corp. (2d Ed.) 172......
-
Griffin v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Corporation
...these powers in the same way and they are governed by the same rules as a private individual or corporation. Tuttle Bros. & Bruce v. Cedar Rapids (C. C. A. 8) 176 F. 86, 88; Illinois T. & S. Bank v. Ark. City (C. C. A. 8) 76 F. 271, 282, 34 L. R. A. 518. The contracts in the instant case ar......
- Kan. Flour Mills Co. v. New State Bank of Woodward
-
Hadler v. North West Agricultural
... ... Decatur County Agri ... Soc. 73 Iowa 11, 5 Am. St. Rep. 651, 34 N.W. 484; ... corporations. Tuttle Bros. & Bruce v. Cedar Rapids, ... 176 F. 86, ... city of Minot for fair purposes and designated twelve ... ...