The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-01-16

ssaer to be demonstrated by the success, If
~ uefense. which proved the correctness
-. "a aIs position. and saved the city from an
.An Ienss apparent liability.
LBS case demonstrates that there H. Is
IN sae nature of things there must be, such
: mag - an emergency in the affair. Of
: municipal corporation. IS welt as in those
~ private corporations and individuals.
sof which neither laws charters nor orsii-
nances provide We venture that il va
never contemplated By the trainers of this
sn1sses That any such condition OF az
se-hs - was developed in this case would
1917, where both the legislative and the
lanIclal departments of the city vonld be
srfsyed against its chief executive 20 CON-
y. nin TO perform an Illegal and uncon-
sAtusional act; and IL II had been intended
y the charter 10 cover such case. then
the answer TO that proposition would b
VA. municipal corporations are not
coined. by the constitution or the laws.
sAtn power. either directly through their
charters or ordinances or indirectly
Ihrooxn. the failure or refusal of their off,
cers 20 act. 70 prevent the honest and
ploper EFFORTS OF an executive officer 60
ssosd plain violation of the general Law.
The corporation Is the creature of the
state and must exist whether its people
VIII or not. u the law of ats creation IS q
vAfd law But suppose some individual
should make direct attack upon It's exist
ence and seek through judicial action q
Judgment that IL Was no corporation. and
TIE same departments which opposed the
mayor in Chalk vs.. White should take the
position that the plaintiff was rixat aud
ought 70 have judgment. The mayor in
that case would be in q far less responsible
POSITION than he was in the bond case yet
u he should employ counsel and defeas
sne seton II would be strange thing in
deed. II the cost Of that defense could not
De recovered from the city whose duty il
was. under the Law. 70 make IT
But the case opposed 10 no stronger
THAN the one before u.s. Paramount laws
we're 10 be upheld aud aparamonnt duty
lay upon the city to uphold them The
ciiy. violating its own ssif-made charter,
IN its corporate capacity failed to respond
70 the duty imposed upon ii. but the off,
Ger whom 1t had employed and sworn to
be its faithful agent in such cases per-
formed his part with the only means
available. and his authority to employ
those means IN the emergency must be
conceded. To hold oti.erw wise would Be TO
let chaos rule, since officers are under no
legal obligation to defend suits of this
isiu not being fund upon which NUM-
c.pal corporations have right to draw
for such purposes
THE rule of law above alluded to, that
when the mode in which q municipal cor
poration may contract Is specially and
plainly prescribed and limited, that mode
Is exclusive and must be pursued or the
contract viii not bind the corporation. is
brmly settled. and il supported By almost
universal authority. DILLON, Nun. Corp.
a I'd. ;. 40, and cases cited in note 2. /
but none OF the cases cited to our attsn-
ton by the respondent reach the point
that 10 IN issue here. Butler vs.. City of
Chariestown, Gray Il. came nearest TO IL;
but in that case it did not appear that
there was any unwiilingneys on the part
OF the corporation to furnish the alder
men who resisted an unconstitutional law
with legal assistance. On the contrary the
case was rested upon what was assumed
to be q custom of the city To permit COM
mfttees and officers to make such con-
tracts. and there was no responsibility
resting upon the aldermen to make any
resistance to annex alton Of Charlestow n
TO Boston.
1.-TWO recent cases are cited by the APP
pellants, however. one of which is practi-
caiiy on all fours with the case 1t bar
Barnett vs.. Patterson * Co., As New Jersey
Law, 1856. and City Of Louisville vs..
Murphy, So Kentucky. So: and in both
cases the right of the mayor to employ
counsel In such emergencies was upheld.
In the former case the mayor successfully
resisted an attempt to compel him TO sign
illegal bonds. In the latter he sought to
enjoin the collection of an alleged Illegal
tar. We think the case before us presents
as strong q case of emergency as could be
titled to make their proofs and have judg-
ment for what their services were reason
ably worth, as well as their necessary dis
burssments. Judgment reversed and
cause rer..anded for a new trial."
The supreme court has already. in the
Soule case. decided that the city is moi
liable on the street grade warrants.