, 1859-06-29
1.-THE CITY INJUNCTION CASE.
The 0ptniou OF the Iudgc.--TKle In
junction Granted.

junction Granted.
CHt-AGp irSL -. 1s14.
Phillip i,can t'ui
Til: a+y.: 8; & IL: City Motto" . *"j'''.
nf Chicago, It ii.
In this case bill was filed by complainant,
Dean, i tax payer md fttelolder OF the City ut
Chicago, t" restrain The defendants fruin ne.,o-
mon Council of the City, and as it is alleged,
without authority Of law.
Upon objection being made - defendants,
for want oi proper parties, leave was given Il,
complainant to amend bill by making ali other
taxpayers. except defendants, Lari,s similar
! Interest with SAID bran, parties complainapts.
lis now o!,j-ctcd by defendants that com.
nlainlsi.ab,c, it can Only be prosccntcd by the
States Attorney III behalf cF :I.r state.
il il aerided i. numerous cases that when the
Injury affects the public, or franchise isnsurp-
| cd Or exercised in !: case not authorized, the
| remedy is BY bill or gro Tar<a~to in behalf VI
the State, anil TIN. private individuals cannot
mainta:n suit in snch cases, unless they can
show that by reason cf thc art complained Of
the: suffer d1mag" peculiar II themselves dis
tinc: tTum the damage suffered by the public at
large CITY Of Georgetown vs.. the Alexandria
C., TO-, II Peters, ~. Smith vs. tnc ely of
Boston, Gushing, e's. to,nin, IS. Lrwen, i
Ioh.5n, ~. HiSclow Us. the Hartford bridge
/ Co. II Cunn., :5t;:. Vbren rs. the Newark Il.
k. Co., II Conn, 37!. Uoolitt!e u. superyi-
sors w of Boon County. Is New York H.. 1;5.
There is also anD;fet cla:s of ~ase-, apparent
!v in conflict With tto5c uelorc cited, in Which il,
is tecidc:. that taxpayers and irtehoi1css, us
i'll the present case, may ulaintaiu suit to pre-
vent the officers of IL municipal corporation
trpm doing any nc. unauthorized, by which thu
Il i
der, :thrls cplcr vs Mayor ot New York, IL
Barber, q. Miihaw rs. $h.r,. =! ijarber, 10.
Stuvvcsanf -: ;:ca>krll, u larbrr, ~. De
JtE::tn KS. the Mayor Of New York, j.; EArbcr,
3::. Wood rs. Drapcr "a Barber, Isl,
1t is suggested i'll the able o!,Ipon If Judge
Deuio, III the case cf 1'c"!'ttle -c. 5IIcrvi,ur>
Of I'r""nc C~"r:v, tI.1 The la,1cr class of cases
the cit'zens If towns, as corporators, stand in Il
different relation to the lncal government from
thai which they uccnp" in other c.ses, but he
declines gir!ng ::ny opinion rp"n .hc question.
Ia tie casts last cited, aud in tic c.ssr bc(orc
the four, it is difficult tn sce upon villa, grounds
the S'a's should be specially called upon to pro-
-vcste- The INJURY cu:npiaincd uf does not in
tacr affect the public 1T large. Tie citizvns Of
tilr Stale, such. flavc n0 real interest in the
question. 1ft!.c act was J"ue, t!lcv would suf
trr NJ rr"i injury, exctrti"y such rs w0nl'l he
inprd ttnn the Illegal exercise Of L franchise.
Aant'ttinI she act 10 be public grievance,
ana one fur which the State mi :lt maintain Ill
action, it is apparent that tie tax payers Of the
city us distinguished from t!c ci1izcns Of tilc
State "r people at large sn!lrr special damage,
and inlcc1 are The only pcrsons who can suffer
ANYTHING mnre than nnn,'nal damage. Ii this
Is Il cnrrect view, these cases comes within the
exception recognized in the first class If tile
c"u.Ylslaans>' cases suffering special ia,nssv,
and the apparent conflict i, lecouriicd.
r,np ,,.n..r4l III IN
t"re.tcd IN the ohrcs Of thu suit are heipre the
t"urt, and the .,jcct Is une Of equitable iuris-
lic1iun il is ss,tIiritnt.
l knew al no 1ulc requiring the Court to turn
parties uut Of Court under such circumstances
This is not Il pr"cee'!ingfo 10 prevent thccNerri>e
"t Il franchise, so-wit borr.,wn. mnncv, but I"
restrain the ttetclnlIlts iroM ne:."1H'iny binds
un.!tr circumstances u", authorized by l:.w.
But whatever HAY be the true rule ~ .lc.luces
irum the general authorities npOn this qurstun
il is evident that in this State the authority Of
tax PAYERS to maintain !. bill like III" present is
fully sanctioned. III the case If Cation It. U.S.
vs.. Ilanc.ctt ct. ais l.; III. Gl', the complain
auts were tax payers Of O5le caun.y, aaI .ilel
their bill to enjnil tue Supervisors u: the county
to restrain t1scm from m!sarrfying the HONEY
uf The county.
The precise objection made in the case nuw
before the Court WAS nude in tie Supreme
Court, and was expressly decided by the Cnnrt.
liAt fa~t, H1l tHaCitf III DUIlI, Is al t.1Sl rs
stron@ Us the present.
in thr present case, showing this TO BIZ 1l,t l,ror
cr and nny rarctual remedy in i case ike ,t.c
present. Say the Court "Tirv sthe complain
antsl could not resist the payment Of their
taxes on the ground that The 1narl Of Super
visors were abuut IL ini$apply part Of lllc
Cnuntr revenue, for The whuIc revenue wuu
be collected together, and it would be inil'rac-
iitas,lc to determine how much Of tic tax as
sr>std against each individual WAS nn account
If The illegal application Of thu County funds"
These remarks apply With full force in Tie
present case. II Is evident the co'np1ainants
could obtain m redress whiclwou'd be etlec,ua,
except in this form.
In Il recent CASE. May term. 1855, J 1'rctiyman
r. Supervisors "f farewell County, L. Illinois
;:A;. singh, individual maintained Il hIll 10 re-
strain tllr supervisors from is>ln, bonds TO
build Il rail'":. NJ objection WAS tla'!c as te
parties S' far rs appears ir"nt the report. But
lilo feet that ,u objection was male i iii ind
cati"n 1t the understanding If tue profession
np"n tie question, especially i'll case of great
Importance, aud cxc1in:- :.:rar interest. and de-
ftnitI by able ani experienced ceut1sel.
The main question whether the defendants
threatening IL .lp jill act unauthorized BY lar,
anti "l.irl it .lone wnufd in legal contemplation
njnrinusiv affect the coni'1aMants s,li remains
tn he considered.
The defendants having filed their answer, the
ra>e >tmts Upon its merits in the mus, tav.r-
able r'sitiuu tor tie defendants. as the Court
treats t,Ie answer is true.
As stated hy both counsel. thu question is
one nf great importance, aud inpnscs u"nu tslr
four, great responsibility, which as ILL indsd-
| ual would xl4t!lv have avoided.
", when responsibility is thrown, upon III.
officially. wl.icl, l am unwilling. to meet and
| 'li>charg" without ltar nr Favor. trust >::al1
have -cl;'re>lcct enough 10 resign Il position
which c"ntl no longer hon"rahty retain.
II s!lrrt arr uuf itn'llv and malicious motives
prompting individuals Win are urging this
prosecution and political "I,jcrts IN be effected
t.v ts.is proce.Au. <. as ts;.< lceu infatuated hv
c"nnsc!. rln unty say l have M sympathy
with or desire 10 promote such purl"srs. And
have yet IL 1raru that any Hlln or party suS-
ta;n> tu":rl myself anv rtlati"n rta,ni'iu. If
sne III decide t11is or any ether question hasin.
regard tn ;rv considerations but tflc law ut the
cl>e :S I understand it.
Ii the consequence If granting; tl,e injanc-
| tinn would be Is >cri"u> IL c'ntsnae'l TOR by
the respondents, and blast the Prosperity aud
credit ui tile city, it forms M a|ol":1s for dr.
reelection Of judicial duty, but Is powerful sn''-
tlst to urge the court IL deliberate and ,hrr
ou.h examination If the law Of tllr case.
The ease l,t% been most fully and ably ar
| .nra IN both sides, an.l respective theories II
| the "pl"sins cou,l,a] fully elaborated as,,I es-
pla:nttl. :n.t it tE' j. Iel,ain> for the Court
IL decide which is Tie ltgal view Vi the case,
| Though thu question presented is simple i'll
i;> .tAtvt4ent, il involves substantially til:
>traction Of the Whole charter Of the city.
That Il municipal charter is grant Of power,
| and The corporation can exercise no power iii.
| lr>s t, j. expressly granted ar necessarily il,-
piled il. order Il. ,'tltctu st The powers expressly
granted, are principles too familiar il require :,
| citation of aultnritits.
That charter. like every other statute or 'rs-
>;runtnf. is IL be CONSTRUED t.cthcr 50 that ev.
cry portion nl:y bc operative and effective, is !:
well settled aud familiar rule OF construction.
! 1t is commended hv The defendants rhat in Ut
t.r 10 .i,e iurcr and effect IL the NUMEROUS rre
visions y! tie charter, giving powr- IN huil<
bridges. etc. c't., ETC.. that power IL make con
tracts. pay fnr the >;t!lit. a.1 IL hnruw nlunrs
tn meet such obligations, is implied. And tia
| the provision oi The charter contained in TIN
';th Subdivision of the 9Th Section Of l:il Ar:
Gle, may l,s construed - is 10 allow ihr cilv /,
hnrr"w l!unct for all the purposes specified il
Tie charter. and one hundred Thousand dollar:
annually in addition.
There cat. t't ia doubt II tic first legal pro
position: That The rtN es IL do an act lmplit:
cvers.fin. necessary tn MAXI il effective. IN,
il the ;stt1 Subdivision, whirll grants tu I'll.
Common Council rrwcr III h.rrow money n"1
cxcrr'lia. one hundred Thousand .nlars in Ill,
rut year, is not Il limitation u]"n tho power I,
b"rrow. thrn the &c, complained If was lawful
II il is Limitation, the act was unauthor::e,