Case ID: walker_4/html/0318-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PEOPLES’ APPEAL.
    When a municipal corporation prevents a contractor from fulfilling his contract, he has a remedy by an action for damages, but he cannot enjoin the Commissioner of Highways from cleaning the streets.
    No. 267 January Term, 1882. Appeal from Court of Common Pleas No 3, of Philadelphia County. In Equity.
    Robert J. Peoples filed a Bill in Equity against the City of Philadelphia and Wm, Baldwin, Commissioner of Highways, alleging that the Board of Health was authorized by Act of March 18th, 1864, P. Laws, 397, to clean the streets, &c. That said Board of Health advertised proposals for cleaning said streets, &c., in the 8th and 11th districts, for the year 1882, and awarded the contract to complainant at his bid on November 15,1881. That complainant tendered his security for the faithful performance of his contract, but the Councils instructed the City Solicitor, by resolution of December 2, 1881, not to permit the execution of contracts for cleaning the streets until further instructions of 'Councils. That on Dec. 23, 1881, Councils passed an ordinance transferring the duty •of cleaning the streets from the Board of Health to the Department of Highways. Complainant, as a taxpaper and as a contractor, asked for a decree declaring the ordinance void because it had more than one subject in its title, and enjoining the Commissioner from contracting with any one else for ■cleaning the streets in thj 8th and 11th districts, and establishing his fights in the premises.
    - The Court refused the injunction on January 14, 1882. Peoples then appealed.
    
      
      S. Davis Page, Esq., for appellant,
    argued that Peoples, as a taxpayer, had a right to file his bill; Page vs. Allen, 58 Pa., 345; Wheeler vs. Philadelphia, 77 Pa., 347. A contract had been made, Campbell vs. City, 10 W. N. C., 221; Dutton vs. Philadelphia, 9 Phila., 597, and nothing could alter its obligation; Struthers vs. Philadelphia, 4 W. N. C, 378; Perkins vs Slack, 86 Penna., 280; Philadelphia vs. Fox, 64 Penna, 169. The ordinance entitled, “An ordinance to modify the powers and duties of the Board of Health and of the Department of Highways” is illegal. Dorsey’s Appeal, 72 Pa., 195; Allegheny County Home’s Appeal, 77 Penna., 80; Donohugh vs. Roberts, 11 W. N. C., 186.
    
      C. E. Morgan, Jr., and Wm. Nelson West, Esqs., for appellees,
    argued that the ordinance was lawful; Act of May 19, 1874, P. Laws, 218; Blood vs. Mercelliott, 53 Penna., 391; Church Street, 54 Penna., 353; Dorsey’s Appeal, 72 Penna,, 192; Commonth vs. Green, 58 Penna., 226. Baldwin vs. City, 10 W. N. C., 560; Dixey vs. City, 10 W. N. C., 561. If appellant had a valid contract, his remedy is by action at law for damages. But no appropriation was made for cleaning streets to the Board of Health, but it was made to the Commissioner of Highways. No Department can make a legal contract without a previous appropriation; Act April 21, 1858, P. Laws, 386; Art. XV, Sec. 2, Constitution, 1874; Act June 11, 1879, P. Laws, 130; Perkins vs. Slack, 86 Pa., 270; Parker vs. City, 92 Pa., 401.
    
      S. Davis Page, in reply,
    contended that by ordinance of September 30, 1881, the Board of Revision of Taxes were di rected to levy a tax on each hundred dollars of assessed valuation in section 2d, item 12, “for the Health Department the sum of five cents,” and as it further continued, “And said amounts are hereby declared to be appropriated for said objects;” it was a sufficient appropriation.
    In answer to this it was argued that the ordinance referred to was to levy taxes, not to appropriate money; Matthews vs. Philadelphia, 8 W. N. C., 251.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the Court of Common Pleas on April 17th, 1882, in the following opinion :

Per Curiam.

This being an appeal from a decree refusing a preliminar}'' injunction, dcecree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellant.