Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-03-14
THE BOND CASES III TIE CIRCUIT
COURT.

The case of E. D. Kennedy vs. the City OF
Sacramento occupied the entire day yesterday
in the Circuit Court of the United States. It
was argued by w. A. Anderson aud A. 2.
Ca,lin for the city, and J. W. Winans for the
nlsiutif. This case involves the sum of &c..
GIG. coupons Of 1879-SO-S1, and presents the
questions Can tbs city be sued Has the Act
Of 1858, under which the bonds wers issued,
| teen repealed!
1t was urged upon argument by the plain
tiff that the provisions Of the Acts of 1858
and 1868, which declare that the city Of Sac.
ramento shall not be sued, is unconstitutional
under Section SO Of Article ". of the old
Constitution, and Section of Article XII.
of the new Constitution. Also, that this pro-
vision would impair the obligation of con-
tracts made prior to the passage of the Act of
1858 ; that such provision as that contained
in the charter of Sacramento is absolutely
void /; that the constitutional provisions re-
ferred to cay that corporation can sue or be
sued, aud that this means that municipal COR
porations can be sued, even though the stat
ute may declare otherwise. 1t was also
claimed that the original indebtedness was
created under the Act of 1851, which pro-
vided that the city might be sued.
Counsel for the city argued that the consti-
tutioual inhibition cited did not apply to
municipal corporations. and that the Supreme
Court Of this State had 30 held, and that
when the Legislature made an exception IN
favor Of any municipal corporation, it was an
exercise Of sovereign power in favor Of one of
the agents Of the State, which is also part
Of the sovereign power of the State that
municipal corporations are mere instruments
of the State, and that their power may be
prescribed, ENLARGED or withdrawn at the
pleasure of the Legislature, and that when
the Legislature granted the exemption it was
20 endow the city with the same sovereign
power that the State itself possessed; that
the Act of 1851 could not be invoked because
the creditors took new obligation under the
Act of 1858 with the conditions in that Act
named, and also the Act of 1851 was absolutely
repealed. 1t YVES also argued that even though
the city of Sacramento could be sued under the
constitutional provision, all the taxes, revenue,
property, chooses in action, etc, were express
~ exempt from any process, mesne or final,
SO that even if q judgment could bs OBJ
tanned, it could not be enforced; that the
Legislature had right to change the char
ter, even to the extent of rendering the
municipal corporation extinct, and in this
connection referred to the celebrated Mem
phis case reported in 102 Z. s. Reports, 472,
also to cases reported in 80 CAL, go, and 43
Cal, 540 There are many fine law points
and nice constitutional questions involved in
this case, which, in reality, affects about
81, 700, 600 of Sacramento city bonds.
Judge Sawyer during the argument said
that, upon the general question OF the power
to sue municipal corporations in the absence
of any statutory inhibition, he had decided
that question within the past few days in the
Spring Valley Water Works case.
The case was submitted, with the under
standing that plaintiff should file his brief
within ten days, and the defendant to have
twenty days thereafter TO fire its brief.
The other case against the city of Sacra-
mento in the same Court by the same plain
tiff. which involved the question of the tatute
of Limitations, was continued for the tarm.