# Amey v. Allegheny City

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
65 U.S. 364
Amey v. Allegheny City
THIS case came up on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the western district of Pennsylvania.
The nature of the case is explained in the head note of this report, and fully set forth in the opinion of the court.
It was submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Knox for the plaintiff, and Mr. Loomis for the defendant.
Mr. Knox divided his argument into the following heads:
1. The words of the acts.
2. The purpose of the acts.
3. The interpretation put upon them by the Legislature.
Under the first head, he contended that the power to issue bonds was included in the power to subscribe to the capital stock; and referred to Commonwealth v. M. Williams, 1 Jones, 62.
Carr v. Le Feure, 3 Carey, 413.
McMasters v. Reed's Executors, 1 Grant's Cases, 36.
Commonwealth ex rel Hamilton v. Pittsburg, Pittsburg
Legal Journal, March 12, 1860, No. 35, pp. 274-276.
The popular use of the word 'subscribe' corresponds with the grammatical and legal meaning, as stated in the above cases. Allegheny city has placed this interpretation upon them, and no different construction ought now to be admitted.
The words 'certificates of loan' and 'bonds' are considered identical by several acts of the Legislature, viz: 21st of April, 1851, 18th April, 1853, May 8, 1854.
2. The purpose of the acts.
The purpose was to enable the city of Allegheny to contribute by the use of its credit to the making of this road, and bonds, with coupons, were the only kind of securities that would serve the purpose of the act.
2 Peters, 661; 3 Wheaton, 388.
3. The interpretation placed on the act by the Legislature.
The act of May 8, 1850, passed after the issue of the first set of bonds, recognised them as a debt of the city.
The two first points relate to the act of 1852, as well as to the first act.
Mr. Loomis confined his argument to the following propositions, viz:
1. Whether the several acts of Assembly mentioned in the case stated conferred any authority on the corporation of the city of Allegheny to give bonds, with coupons, as stated in the cause.
2. Whether such bonds and coupons are null and void by reason of such want of authority.
3. Whether they are null and void for any other irregularity connected with their issue.
Upon the first point, Mr. Loomis expatiated upon the unreasonableness and injustice of binding the property of one man by the will of another, which was not sanctioned by the Constitution of Pennsylvania.
The only power given to the corporation was to subscribe, which might, perhaps, have given the railroad company a right of action. Under the city charter, no authority to issue the bonds existed; by the delegation of the authority to subscribe, none was conferred. The plaintiffs took the title at their peril. The public interest requires that corporate functionaries should be kept strictly within the pale of their authority and duty.
[Mr. Loomis then cited a number of authorities in support of these positions. His argument upon the other points must be omitted for want of room. The above notice constitutes but a faint outline of the arguments of both counsel.]
Mr. Justice WAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse