Case ID: ri_18/html/0536-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert H. I. Goddard et al. vs. The City of Providence et als.
    
    By an ordinance of tlie city council of the city of Providence, the Mayor was authorized “by and with the advice of the committee on the city debt” to guarantee the payment of certain bonds issued by a railroad company. On demurrer to a bill in equity by taxpayers to enjoin the guaranty of such bonds :
    
      Held, that the committee on the city debt were properly made parties to the bill.
    The bill alleged that the bonds of the railroad companjr referred to in the ordinance had been sold and negotiated, and were outstanding in the hands of persons unknown to the complainants ;
    
      Held, that the bill was not demurrable for not making the railroad company a party to the bill.
    Bill in Equity for an injunction. On demurrer to the hill.
    By an ordinance of the city council of the city of Providence, passed December 8, 1893, the Mayor was authorized, by and with the advice of the committee on the city debt, to guarantee the payment of certain bonds issued by the Providence and Springfield Railroad Company. The bill alleged that said bonds had been sold and negotiated, and were outstanding in the hands of sundry persons to the complainants unknown, and prayed for an injunction against the city of Providence from endorsing or guaranteeing the bonds, against the Mayor from signing the guaranty of the city of Providence, and against the committee on the city debt from advising the guaranty by the Mayor.
    
      March 21, 1894.
   Per Curiam.

By the terms of the ordinance (No. 713. An Ordinance Authorizing'the Endorsement of the Bonds of the Providence and Springfield Railroad Company) the Mayor is authorized to guarantee the payment of the bonds, only by and with the advice of the committee on the city debt. Their advice is consequently necessary to the Mayor’s action. This being so, the committee on the city debt is a part of the instrumentality for the carrying out by the city of the action which it is the purpose of the bill to enjoin. We think, therefore, that, in accordance with well settled principles, the committee on the city debt were properly made parties to the bill. Story’s Eq. PL § 159. Sully v. Drennan, 113 U. S. 287. Their demurrer to the hill is overruled.

James Tillinghast, Richard B. Comstock & Rathbone Gardner, for complainants.

Francis Colwell, City Solicitor, for the respondents.

The bill avers that the bonds have all been sold and negotiated. If this he so, the Providence and Springfield Railroad Company have ceased to have any interest in the bonds, and no relief being prayed against it, the complainants could not properly have made it a respondent. Had they done so the bill would have been clearly demurrable.

The Judiciary Act, cap. 20, § 16, provides that any person, on making it appear that he is interested in the subject matter of a suit, may be allowed to become a party. If the Providence and Springfield Railroad Company are still the holders of the bonds, as claimed, when that fact appears, it may he permitted by the court to become a party to the suit, if the complainants do not voluntarily amend their bill by making it a party; but on the allegations of the bill, of which alone, on demurrer, we can take cognizance, we do not think that the Providence and Springfield Railroad Company is entitled to he made a party; and, hence, the demurrer of the. city of Providence, incorporated in its answer, based on the ground that the bill is defective for the nonjoinder of that company, must also he overruled.