The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1843-07-18
Supreme Court OF Errors OF Connec ticut.
I,,..


est bond for $1,000 dated June 49, 1888 PAYABLE in
ten years with interest scmi-annually The defendant
pleaded mon est tsetum On the trial below the plaintiff
onered evidence OF subscription of the city Bridgeport
to the amount OF 900 in the year 1886 and another of
sss9oo IN the year 1887 These subscriptions
condon that the road should terminate within the limits
oil the city Agents appointed negotiate for and
procure the funds necessary pay subscriptions by
loan or loans al an interest not exceeding per per
annum and to pledge the credit OF the city therefore bv
issuing certificates for the by promsory by
@ o IA any o.ner Term payable in not less than ten
In 1888 on the application of the city the General As
sem ~ Connecticut IN resolution specifying all the
city, &c., should be ratified confirmed established and
made on said city of Bridgeport and the citizens
thereof in the same and the same extent as if
the powers necessary to give full form and validity
the said of said city had been expressly and
was further resolved That full power and authority
&C. be granted at legal meeting &c. to adopt such
necessary and proper carry into effect &c. the
ings heretofore had &c. and to provide for the
o. said subscriptions and the issuing and negotiation of
as said city shall at such meeting order or d.
to secure the objects contemplated by said subscrp
tsns and said city shall be held liable bound to paw
such instruments as shall from time to time be
according to the charter OF said company; and notes.
certificates scrip and other securities which have BEEN
or may ne issued as aforesaid shall be obligatory said
city to all ntens and purposes may enforced and
collected in the same manner and to the
debts lawfully contracted by towns in this State are en-
forced under the existing laws of this State.
was then provided that the act should not be obiga
Bridgeport at corporate meeting legally warned for
purpose and the evidence of their the same
10 the Secretary Of the State to be by him
corded.
Evidence was then offered Of vote of the city, approx
ing OF the act and certificate Of the Secretary Of the
state that the vote was rccordad in his office.
subsequent votes the city from time time for about
our years specifying the form Of the bonds and direct
ing the agents to deliver them from time to time the
OiD company IN payment Of nstalmens due and
them in payment and binding themselves to account for
the interest on the surplus, to the time when the in.
nn;mt;n . uscome auei also votes OF the city ap.
Phg agents from year to year to vote on the stock
TO all this evidence the defendants objected ground
ne CITY had no authority to votes and that
mon right, unconstitutional, and void.
The Court below received the evidence, and the case
was now brought up on writ of error founded bill
| oil exceptions.
Hon; Nh HUNTINGDON, of the United States Senate
opened the argument behalf OF the city. He
that the Importance OF the could be overraed
the legislative will of the State, combined with the will
Of corporation possessed the claimed in this case
no safe in the enjoyment Of his property The
nard earnings OF life of industry and toll may be wresed
from the owner By the will of majority of town,
even OF school district The Legislature could if this
doctrine is correct authorize any petty corporation to
create lien on every mans property who happened to
state OF things II would become necessary pass
bankrupt law for honest men whose property had thus
with bodness, though with all due respect bodies
who had done the acts in question. This Court had
ways taken hrm stand against legislative usurpation-
He said he ought in justice his clients say that they
were honorable men, and had no sympathy with repudi
l denied
liability to pay the bond in question, they had
given any authority to issue it.
ne sad before he proceeded to the main question, he
wshedto answer one objection which he understood
made IN the Court below. 1t was claimed that the de-
were estoPped by their votes issuing and ap-
Individual citizens had right appear deny the
validity of the votes Of the ces-lO Conn. Rep. 500
private property may be taken to satisfy the Judgment
3 States and public and private corporations have
right to deny the validity ofther acts4 Pet Rep 4l0
| do 40 Taun Rep 1903, Barn. & AL. l. Bing 2S3,
| T. X 100. IL Conn. 437.
On the main question, he contended,
The city had power under charter 10 subscribe.
exist without legislative action although sometimes that
is mPiIed.1Angel 4 Ames. 81, Conn. sss, &c. The
power must be given in express terms in the charter
be clearly implied from the language used its exercise
He said he did not admit, however that if such pow
er claimed in this case was expressly given, it
They must relate to object for which the corporation
was established. Angel Ames SO, Term 1914
had voted to contribute 1000 dollars to raise
in hsnor Of Lord Wellington Would the citizens have
| been bound to pay
This bond given to pay a subscription. The char
ter gives no express authority for such purpose The
think proper confers such power. The power
does not imply the power to contract How many would
have We voted 10 lay a tax instead Of subscribing
| All powers granted by statutes affecting private
rights to be construed stricty7 john CHI $751; Pet
The power to tax although general, be limited by
the subject matter connected with tho object the nco
poration. IL Pick 3es When directors of corpora
ton authorised do whatever for the benefit
OF the corporation, it held that they limited to
the object OF the act OF Incorporation Pet ILL., Cond
Hsr aaG 10 John $50 &c The design Of the railroad
not necessary or proper to the of the city charter
s though s1
was incorporated for the regulation Of internal affairs
its police Sci and does net embrace objects without its
limits lSwifts Sys. 1ls III Angel and Ames l6 II,
&c. The powers granted all local in their nature
and not to be exercised without the limits of the CITY,
Thara ia nnthi
city can derive no benefit from such subscription.
The votes of city deal in genealtss and do not point
The charter Of the city Of Hartford is expressly limit
ed and the Legislature could not have intended to have
rec, s. M on the city Of sdgs5or
determine who to be benefited by the exercise OF
power or that individuals will be benefited 20 john 4S9
| 440. 2Wend 30s
tits not in the power of the Legislature authorize
majority in such corporation to tax minority against
city can Determine the necessity of an act, they
can build whole road establish line of stages
boats. and colleges academies, build mills and
taverns and even raise money induce people settle in
| it. They could take stock in whaling company and
become endorsers and bank any pur
pose whatever. Such results would be intolersble.
The act Of the Legislature OF 1888 does lcgalse
the bonds The act is merely confirming and retro pee
tive The subscription being as has been shown, void
could not be confirmed II would be making contract
| for the parties Pet. Ill, &c.
Aretrospective act which is unreasonable and unjust
| Is void. Cowan. 209.
A retrospective act cannot be passed in New Hamp
shire An which takes away vested rights is
Gallison, l3o.
The act OF 1889 being merely Retrospective does
reach this bond, for previous vote Of the city autho
rsed it, The resolve authorizes no new subscription
All statutes in derogation Of common right be strict
| ly pursued , Cowsn ksp, 40 3Johns. C. l07.
The previous votes OF the city only authorised the
agents to issue bonds time with interest at per cent
The agents have made the interest payable semi annu
ally Ihey mad no authority to do this, TO make the
interest payable before the principal IS T. r. 66s &c
The previous vote cities only authorized agents
to raise money on the bonds 20 pay the ntalm ents
they have applied the bonds directly pay Of the
instruments and in fact before the instruments due
| and in this law exceeded their authority.
The legislature intended to confer no new powers
This sapparen from the petition OF the city for the act
| and from the preamble to the act itself.
| There evidence that of the city meetings
legally warned the votes Of that meeting were Of
void But II the act Of 1888 an enblipg act