Wimer v. Worth Township

• Decision Date: 12 November 1883
• Citation: 104 Pa. 317
• Parties: Wimer <I>versus</I> Overseers of the Poor of Worth Township.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

104 Pa. 317

Wimer versus Overseers of the Poor of Worth Township.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

October 16, 1883.

November 12, 1883.

October 16th 1883.

Before MERCUR, C. J., GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT, GREEN and CLARK, JJ.

ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Butler county: Of October and November Term 1883, No. 186.

Thompson (McCandless with him), for the plaintiff in error. —The only consideration of the bond was the alleged release. This court has already held that the attempt by the poor district to release Wimer was inoperative, being ultra vires: Humphrey Ex'r v. Worth Twp., 3 Out. 185. This being so, there was no legal consideration, and the bond is void: Maurer v. Mitchell, 9 W. & S. 69.

I. Z. Mitchell (with him G. W. Fleeger), for the defendants in error.—The plaintiff in error is estopped by his own conduct from setting up the defence of ultra vires. Having had the advantage, he must bear the burden of the contract. When it is a simple question of capacity to contract, a party who has had the benefit of a contract with a corporation, is estopped from denying its validity. A party having borrowed money from a corporation, cannot defend on the ground that the corporation had no authority under its charter to make the loan: Herman on Estoppel 532; Wright v. Antwerp Pipe Co., 12 W. N. C. 326.

Mr. Justice TRUNKEY delivered the opinion of the court, November 12th 1883.

The bond and release evidence an agreement between Wimer and the overseers of the district, that Wimer would pay fifteen hundred dollars in annual payments of one hundred and fifty dollars, for which the district would support Eleanor Hines during life, and at her death provide for her burial. At the date of this transaction, Eleanor Hines, by due adjudication, was a pauper and a charge upon the poor district of Worth; and Wimer was bound by contract with her to maintain her during life, and at her death pay the expenses of her burial. It is admitted that the district maintained her while she lived, and paid her funeral expenses, and that Wimer has paid to the district a sum more than sufficient to reimburse the amount so expended.

An act of a municipal corporation, done in an attempt to exercise power not possessed by it, is void. There is no distinction in reason between the cases of entire absence of enactment conferring power, and a prohibition of its exercise beyond a certain limit. In one case power is not granted, in the other it is expressly withheld, and in each there is a total absence of authority: McPherson v. Foster Bros., 43 Iowa 48. The object of a municipal corporation is municipal government, and what this means is not learned from business usage, but from the legislation of the state. Hence there is a tendency to limit the contracts of municipal corporations much more strictly than the contracts of private corporations. But when a municipal corporation is authorized to perform certain business duties, as to issue bonds or subscribe stock, it may be estopped by false recitals, as against bona...