City of Sacramento v. Fowle

Supreme Court

City of Sacramento v. Fowle

88 U.S. 119, 22 L. Ed. 592, 21 Wall. 119, 1874 U.S. LEXIS 1347

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 15, 1875

Docket179

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 88 U.S. 119 (City of Sacramento v. Fowle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Sacramento v. Fowle, 88 U.S. 119, 22 L. Ed. 592, 21 Wall. 119, 1874 U.S. LEXIS 1347 (1875).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice DAVIS

delivered the opinion of the court.

That the summons was served in conformity with the California Process Act we think quite clear.

If the president of the board of trustees, is not the “head of the corporation,” it is difficult to see who is, for no other executive or head officer is named in the charter. Indeed, it would seem that a service upon any officer of less grade would not be a compliance with the statute. The legislature doubtless intended, in pursuance of a wise public policy, to guard the city from the consequences which have sometimes followed legislation permitting suits to be prosecuted against municipal corporations where process was served upon any officer of the city government. It is easy to see that in such a case the public interests might suffer, but no reasonable apprehension could be indulged in this regard if the chief officer intrusted by the people with the management of their affairs was notified of the pendency of judicial proceedings.

The decision on this point disposes of the case, for if the service was in conformity with the statute, the court had jurisdiction of the party and the subject-matter, and the judgment is conclusive against the city, until reversed on direct proceedings, by the Supreme Court of the State.

*123 It is hardly necessary to say that the question of the original liability of the city on the bonds sued upon is not open here. If the city had any defence to make to them, it should have been made when suit was brought against it in the State court.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice DAVIS

delivered the opinion of the court.

That the summons was served in conformity with the California Process Act we think quite clear.

If the president of the board of trustees, is not the “head of the corporation,” it is difficult to see who is, for no other executive or head officer is named in the charter. Indeed, it would seem that a service upon any officer of less grade would not be a compliance with the statute. The legislature doubtless intended, in pursuance of a wise public policy, to guard the city from the consequences which have sometimes followed legislation permitting suits to be prosecuted against municipal corporations where process was served upon any officer of the city government. It is easy to see that in such a case the public interests might suffer, but no reasonable apprehension could be indulged in this regard if the chief officer intrusted by the people with the management of their affairs was notified of the pendency of judicial proceedings.

The decision on this point disposes of the case, for if the service was in conformity with the statute, the court had jurisdiction of the party and the subject-matter, and the judgment is conclusive against the city, until reversed on direct proceedings, by the Supreme Court of the State.

*123 It is hardly necessary to say that the question of the original liability of the city on the bonds sued upon is not open here. If the city had any defence to make to them, it should have been made when suit was brought against it in the State court.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 U.S. 119, 22 L. Ed. 592, 21 Wall. 119, 1874 U.S. LEXIS 1347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-sacramento-v-fowle-scotus-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack