City of Galena v. Corwith

48 Ill. 423
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1868
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 48 Ill. 423 (City of Galena v. Corwith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Galena v. Corwith, 48 Ill. 423 (Ill. 1868).

Opinion

Hr. Chief Justice Breese

delivered the opinion of the Court :

It is insisted hy the plaintiff in error, that, inasmuch as the charter of the City of Galena granted the power to borrow, upon the faith and pledge of the city, so much money as they might deem necessary and expedient, not exceeding twenty thousand dollars in any one year, and to issue bonds, scrip, or certificates therefor, and that the money so borrowed to be expended and applied in liquidation of ttje debts of the city, and in the permanent and useful improvement thereof, that •.thereby the city is prohibited from funding its existing debt, mid giving written evidence thereof, either by bonds bearing interest and on long time, or in any other form the parties . might agree upon.

One single question will, we think, settle the present diffiThe power in the charter to borrow this money, -permits it to be expended in the useful and permanent improvement of the city! How, suppose the whole amount is borrowed, and all expended in improvements, has the city no power to provide for its existing debt, which may be twice twenty thousand dollars ?

Every corporation, or every natural person, has the undeniable and inherent right to pay its debts, or provide for their payment—to fund them, if that he deemed the best policy, and issue the necessary evidences thereof. It will not be denied, municipal corporations have power to contract debts, and without limit, unless restricted by their charters. Having this power, it follows they can provide for their payment, in such mode as they and the holders of the indebtedness may agree upon.

We believe it to be well settled doctrine, that corporations have all the powers of ordinary persons, as respects their contracts, except when they are expressly, or by necessary implication, restricted, and that they have all the powers necessary to carry out an expressly granted, power.

The right bestowed by the charter to borrow, by no means nullifies the power, vital to every corporation, to pay its debts or provide for their payment by postponing the payment to a future day, and issuing evidences thereof. "We do not think the citation of any authority necessary to establish a proposition so plain. A city being in debt, which is evidenced by scrip or by promissory notes, may surely change the form of the indebtedness to interest bearing bonds, and this without any express authority in its charter. It is an inherent power and vital, without which such organizations could not live.

These views dispose of the instruction which was objected to by plaintiff in error, and given by the court for defends^ in error. J

The evidence offered by the plaintiff in error was pro^^r.. ruled out, as it had nothing whatever to do with the meritSLqf' the case. If the scrip was lawfully issued, which is not d^ftb4$ no matter what their depreciation may have been, the bohcls.^ given in place of them must be paid at their face. The city'*1' must pay, as it is “ nominated in the bond.”

There being no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hoehamer v. Village of Elmwood Park
198 N.E. 345 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1935)
Talkington v. Turnbow
83 S.W.2d 71 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1935)
Austin-Western Road Machinery Co. v. Wetzel
264 Ill. App. 254 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1931)
West v. Town of Lake Placid
120 So. 361 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1929)
First National Bank v. Nye County
145 P. 932 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1914)
County of Coles v. Goehring
70 N.E. 610 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1904)
Coquard v. Village of Oquawka
61 N.E. 660 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1901)
Coquard v. Village of Oquawka
91 Ill. App. 648 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1900)
Kunz v. School Dist. No. 28
79 N.W. 844 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1899)
City of Huron v. Second Ward Sav. Bank
86 F. 272 (Eighth Circuit, 1898)
Morris v. Taylor
49 P. 660 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1897)
Portland Savings Bank v. City of Evansville
25 F. 389 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana, 1885)
Merrill v. Town of Monticello
22 F. 589 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana, 1884)
Robertson v. Breedlove
61 Tex. 316 (Texas Supreme Court, 1884)
City of Richmond v. McGirr
78 Ind. 192 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Bicknell v. Widner School Township
73 Ind. 501 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Gause v. Clarksville
10 F. Cas. 96 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri, 1879)
City of Williamsport v. Commonwealth ex rel. Bair
84 Pa. 487 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1877)
Village of Hyde Park v. Ingalls
87 Ill. 11 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1877)
Law v. People ex rel. Huck
87 Ill. 385 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
48 Ill. 423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-galena-v-corwith-ill-1868.