Daily Los Angeles herald., 1878-10-29
Supreme Court Opinions.
By the Court. Filed Oct. 2s, 1875

y: 1919.
BRIANT.
Ifthe bonds in controversy would
have been void in the hands of an
Innocent holder for value and
would not have constituted a valid
charge against the city of San Die.
90, sit must follow, as q cOnse-
"quence, that by no legal possibil.
city can the plaintiff or the other
"taxpayersn of the city be injured
by the supposed illegal acts of the
defendants. Linden vs.. Case, 4e
Cal, 174.
| The first question, therefore, ia
be determined, is, whether the
bonds would have been void in the
hands Of bona fde holder for
value. The authority to issue the
bonds, is derived exclusively from
ordinances numbered 7 and % OF
the Trustees of the city, which
were subsequently ratified and
validated by the act of the Legisla-
ture Of February "a, 1874. (Stat-
utes 1884, p. 1855.
| Ordinance No. 7 provides that
the bonds are "to te issued at such
times and in such manner as said
Board of Trustees may direct;,'
and ordinance No. % ia the fourth
section provides that the bonds are
to be issued "to such pereon or par
sons and at such time or times az
said Board of Trustees may, by res.
Otuti0n, direct" and the fifth Sec
tion, after providing for the sign.
ing of the bonds, etc., then provides
that the ''clerk shall then deliver
said bonds, thus signed and sealed,
to such person or persons and at
such time or times AS said Board
may, by resolution, direct" The
bonds IN controversy were issued
aud delivered to Bowers and were
payable TO him cor the lawful
holder thereof;" and the Court fluids
THAT no resolution OF said Board
of Trustees was ever passed author.
izing said bonds to he issued to said
b wers or designating the demon.
ination OF the same.n
"lt Is u general and fundamental
principle of law that all persons
contracting with municipal cor
poration must, at their peril, in.
Quire into the poWer OF the corpora
LI0n or It's officers to make the con.
tract; and contract beyond the
scope OF the corp0 ate pnwer is
void, although it be under the sea /
of the corporati0n.n DILLON OF,
Municipal Corporations, Sec. 372 }
And where the mode of contract
lug "is specially and plainly
prescribed aud limited, that mode
is exclusive and must be pursued,
or the contract will not bind the
cOrporatiOn.n Dillon on mum.
corp. Section 1873 In Argent VS.
San francisco, 16 Cal, 2S3, Mr..
Justice Field says: "a municipal
corporation can only act In the
cases and in the mode prescribed by
its charter" In McCracken vs.
San francisco, lG Cal, go, the
same learned Judge, in delivering
the opinion Of the Court, saws the
Common Council "were the m mere
agents of the corporation, and pos
sessed only snch powers as were
specially delegated to them by the
charter, and when that instrument
granted power with a specific
designation as to the mode in
which II should be used, the mode
was restrictive--no other mode
could be followed In Zottman
VS.. San francisco, 20 CAL, IO2, the
Court says "the rule is general and
applies to the corporate authorities
Of all municipal bodies, when the
mode in which their power on any
given subject can be exercised il
prescribed by their charter, the
mode must be followed. The mode
in such cases constitutes the meas.
ure Of the power" The same prop.
osition was affirmed in Murphy w,
Napa County, 20 Cal, 5o2; French
vs.. Tescbmaker, "a Cal, 500; Hero
VI. San Francisco, 33 CAL, I45;
People vs. Tomlinson, 35 Cal, 5O7,
and in later cases.
In this case, the ord nanees, as
ratified by the act Of the legisla-
ture, prescribed definitely and pre-.
cisely the mode and the only mods
in which the bonds could be issued
and delivered, to wit, by resolu-
ton of the Board of Trustees, d.
recting when and to whom the
bonds were to be issued and dsliv-
cred. Nor can this requirement be
regarded as merely directory, O vi.
oIation Of which would not impair
the validity of the bonds. On the
contrary, it was intended as pre-
caution against an abuse Of its
power by the Board of Trustees and
to prevent a fraudulent or unau-
thorized delivery by the clerk to y
person not entitled to receive the
bonds. Under the terms of the or
dinance, no bond could be issued or
delivered, except upon resolution
OF the Board appearing upon its
minutes or the record of its pro-
ceedIngs, thus furnishing a most
important safeguard against fraud
and an abuse Of power. Every per-
son dealing in the bonds is bound
at his peril to inquire whether they
were issued in the mode prescri bed
and as the mode is the measure of
the power, the bonds would be void
in the hands Of u holder for value
without actual notice IL issue in
any other mode. We are therefore
of opinion that the bonds in con
troversy would be void in The hands
of bona Jfde holder, aud would
not be- valid charge against the
city. 1t results that the plainti Il
as q taxpayer, can suffer no da IA :
age If the bonds are put in circula-
tion, aud has no cause OF action.
Judy ment aud order reversed aud
,use remanded without costs.
(Mr. Justice MeKiustry aud Mr..
Chief Justice Wallace expressed no
opinion.)
BY the Court. Filed OJt. %, 1878.
JACKSON, !
vs.. No. e,2i7.