The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1880-01-17

row money for these purposes 10 not in-s
dispensable. Such an authority is inn
piled as being an usual and proper means
to accomplish the objects in view. AN
Com. 1901 t#
If the debt be legal, the interest may
be capitalized, for the interest is part Of
the debt and equally exigible. It is in
| evidence that the town called upon it's
creditors for an extension Of time. It
| hal authority Under act 1886 to comp1o-
mise, and as it stipulated to add interest
! to the capital, and did contract and issue.
bonds accordingly, the bargain is bind
ing as to capitalizing under the new con-
tract. &C. G. 1894
| It is, fourthly, urged that no valid or
dinances were passed creating the debts;
that the town was unauthorized to issue
| the bonds, and that it made no provi-
sions in the ordinances purporting to
create the debts to pay them iii principal
and interest, IS required by act No 258
of 1853. Defendant AYERS that the origi-
nal evidences of debts are illegal, and
that the bonds sued on, which we're
given in renewal, are struck with tho
same illegality, ETC., etc.
In the reported cases cited by defend
ant, the holders Of the evidences Of debts
of municipalities presented them to the
courts just as they originally existed, and
failing to prove that authority had been
given to issue them, or that provisions
declared illegal. IA A. As; 26 A. SO n
A. 3l9; % A. 343; 40 A. 461, etc.)
| But different state of facts are here
presented. The present suits are not
brought on the original debts, but on
new bonds given in renewal of them, aid
| we are not prepared to assent to the
proposition that simply because, it may
! be, the town did not, at the time these
old debts were incurred, provide for their
payment, that they are therefore so COM
| pletely struck with nullity. and so abso-
! lutely worthless that no posterior action
of the town could possibly vitalize and
render them valid: ,
| Defendant says that there is no such
thing known to the law as equity viola
tive of positive law, but in the case of
| Mrs. Destrehan, reported in the 81 A. 179,
we are told that where Police Jury in
| Cured debt and made no provision for
| it's payment, it was competent for it to
provoke legal provision for what it may
conscientiously SO owe. Thus with the
Town Council; if it received considera-
ton from plaintiffs, which is not denied
grant that the town failed at the time
to give valid evidences-why should it
not afterwards recognize the validity of
the debts and issue new evidences of the
same One may not by contirmative
act ratify a nullity, but by executing
again the act in legal form make it per-
feet. &C. G. 2253.)
| ne r,1nvf rrrar that r nj n
had brought suits i'll 1866 on the old
bonds and used them in evidence they
| would have lost them, because they
would have had to have shown that pro-
vision had been made for their payment
| in the ordinances creating the debts.
| True, but the suits are now instituted on
| the new bonds, payment of which plain
tiffs alleged has been provided for, I'M
der legal proceedings provoked by de-
! fendant There can be no doubt that
where the consideration Of a contract,
| declared void by statutes, is morally
| good, as in these cases, and the corpora
| ton had gone beyond its powers, it may
reconsider and perfect the contract. e
Otto, p. 3O5.)
Had plaintiffs sued on the original
debts, defendants defense would have
been, not want Of consideration or any
other substantial pleas, but simply that
the forms of law had not been complied
with. If these forms have been altered
at defendants own suggestion, and are
now in legal shape, who has right to
complain
But We have carefully examined the
two bound books containing the pro-
ceedings of the Town Council from 1916
| to 1869, and We are rather inclined to be-
lieve that adequate provisions were made
for the payment of these debts. 1t may
he true that all the different ordinances
NAV not have been drawn with technical
precision, but the evidence is abundant
| in these books to show that the Council
were careful in the administration of the
affairs of the town, in making yearly re-
| uorts Of the revenues and expenditures,
in creating or recognizing debts by or
dinances, and in laying aside for their
payment revenues of ferries, bridge,
mark et-house, wharf, etc. Thus in April,
1854, the books showed a credit of $166O
for the town, and the Mayor was author
| lied to issue bonds to replace warrants
issued to Simon Brand and others which
had been issued before the act of 1853 be-
came in force in this parish. Again, in
August. 1854, bonds Of $4,000 were issued
| and the revenues of the bridge were
pledged. In 1855 other bonds were is
| sued III renewal and revenues of ferries
| and market-house were set apart to pay
| with. Same thing was done in May,
| 1855, and so from time to time bonds in
renewal of old bonds were issued down
| to the issuance Of the new bonds-the
whole showing q bona fde intention on
the part Of the Council to conform to the
law of 1853, and we think that they did
50 substantially.
While we recognize the fact that deal
ers in municipal papers must look at
their peril to their validity, we must also
keep in mind that these persons are en-
titled to the protection Of the courts
when they have dealt i'll good faith with
corporated authorities, lest they be
made the victims of receptions and lest
these corporations escape the payment OF
their debts by reason of mere irregulari-
ties in some Of the particulars OF their
ordinances. Instead of lending a willing
ear to fine distinctions, courts should
adopt liberal construction of the law
in its details, if it be shown that the
power to contract exists, and that a con-
tract was entered into, which was based
on i valuable consideration duly paid.
With these lights before us have we
read and construed the different ordi-
nances of the Town Council from 1886 to
1866, and We can not say that they are
radically in conflict with any law of the
State, nor that the obligations springing
from them are, as defendant contends,
utterly null, void and Of no effect what
ever.
We will now proceed to examine the
validity of the bonds now sued on aud
which were given in renewal Of the old
ones. Act No. So Of 1861 gives full au-
thority to the Town Council to issue
bonds not exceeding $25, OO0 and it is
not contended that the authorities have
issued bonds to that amount even. Are