The herald., 1898-06-05


and March the IL, 1850. hereinbefore men
toned, which constituted the original char
ter of said city, was authorized to make
said agreement and, further, If such origi-
nal authority did not exist, the agreement
was validated by the ratifying act OF April
2, 1870.
These Views render unnecessary the de-
termination of the question Of estoppel
urged by complainants in their last brief.
II. The next defense to the suit Is, that
there is no proof that the rates fixed by the
ordinance of 1897 are less than the rates
that were charged by the assignors OF the
water company at the date of the contract,
July 20, 1868.
The evidence adduced on this point con-
ssts of a report. made in 1870, OF joint
committee of the city water company,
appointed for the purpose of fixing water
rates, which report states. in substance,
among other things, that said committee
had established water rates, taking as
guide the rates charged in 1868, and SINH
lar report made in the year 1874, which re-
ports were accepted and approved by the
mayor and council of the city of Los
Angeles.
Defendants insist that the statements in
as a guide the rates charged in July, 1868.
are heresay declarations of committee of
the council, not binding upon the city, cit
ing Dillon on Municipal Corporations, 4th
edition, Sec. 237, note on page 321-2.
l have examined the cases below men,
toned. which are among those cited by
Judge Dillon in the note referred to, and
find. that, so far from sustaining. they an
1afa do tc, ha r11lo
as 1 gather it from these cases, is this: A
corporation municipal as we'll as private,
is bound by the declarations of it's officers,
where such declarations accompany and
are explanatory of an act done by the Off
Ger in the scope of his authority. (Glidden
VS.. Unity, 80 N. H. 571; The County of La
Sale VS.. William Simmons, 10, Ill, SIG;
Cqvington & Lexington r. r. Co. VS.. In
giles, Is B. Monroe 637; Gray VS.. Rollings-
ford IS N. H. 1853; Toll Bridge Co. VS.. Bets
worth, 80 Conn. $50; Grimes VS.. Keene, 50
N. H. $780,
Unity, supra:
I'm all American courts, towns and other
corporations are now to be considered as
subject to the same presumptions and i'm
plications arising from their corporate
acts or the acts of their agents, within the
scope of their authority, without either
vote, deed or writing as in the case of nat
ural persons. Vide authorities collected in
2 Kents's Com. 29O, and Ang. & Am. on
Corp. 212 They may be bound by the ex-
press promise of their agents or officers,
acting within the scope of their authority,
or such promise may be implied against
the corporation, from the acts of its agents
within their authority, as in the case of
natural persons. Pick 17S; 2 Mason 81"
In the County of La Sale VS.. Simmons,
supra, the court says:
1.-THE declarations of the commissioners,
respecting the payment of he money, were
not competent evidence against the county.
They were not made by them while Off
cially representing the county in
this transaction. The declarations
of an agent. while engaged in
the business of his principal respect
ing particular matter then depending are
a part of the res gestae of the transaction,
and binding on the principal; but thosd
made out of the course of the agency, when
the agent is not acting for the principal In
the particular transaction concerning which
they are made, are mere hearsay, and not
| admissible in evidence against the princi-
pal. Greenleafs Ev., secs. 1874; Story on
| Agency. secs. 1870"
| In the Covington & Lexington Railroad
| Co. v. Ingies, supra, the court said:
1.-The doctrine is we'll settled that where
| the acts of the agent will bind the prn-
cpal, there his representations and state
ments, respecting the subject matter, will
also bind him, If made at the same time,
and constituting part of the res gestae.
Wherever what the agent did is admissible
in evidence, then whatever he said on the
subject while doing it, is also evidence
against the principal. The court, there
fore, did not err in admitting this testi-
mony"
The committees above mentioned were in
the performance Of the duty expressly en-
joined upon them by the city, and the
statements in their reports, that they had
followed the rates charged in july 1865.
were explanatory of the rates they estab-
lished, and, therefore, said statements are
clearly within the rule enunciated by the
foregoing authorities. The same remark
applies to the actions of the council and
mayor in accepting and approving said re-
ports
Defendants further suggest that 1t does
aot appear from said statements whether
the time referred to in July, 1868, was
prior, or subsequent to the 22nd day of that
month, the date of the execution of the
contract.
This suggestion, think, is without force.
The statement is that the committee es-
tablished rates, ETC., taking as guide as