Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-01-28

.,,,- hae The words quoted are the
equivalent. il mot repugnant 10, ~, ;,
conflict with" mot inconsistent VIII ~
and do not limit the taxing power OF tne
citv 10 the provisions Of the section Ihey
only express limitation upon tne gene
raj power conferred tnat Wouiu neevs
sarily have been UNDERSTOOD. NJ i hu
tboritv can be exercised otherwise IMAM
I'm accordance with the laws, etc., OF tne
state and of the United states III lheIe
we're conflict between section lO4Z ana tne
charter section 10iS expressly proVlues
that the general law shaii not pe cV tha
strued TO repeal the provision OF the
charter (See Q. and Alex. Railroad VS.
City OF Alex, IL, Graft, l'o).
CORPORATE POWERS.
Ivnchburg and Rvermont st. Rwy. Co.
VS. Cameron Affirmed. Opinion by
Buchanan, }.
Bill to restrain the city. its oiilcels, &c,
from endorsing or guaranteeing certaih
bonds. which the appellant proposed 10
issue and the city had agreed to guaran-
tee; and to annul the agreement as uiila
wires. Appellant had agreed TO turnish
electric-light to the city, TO erect new
power-statiOn. i'm which the city was 10
aid IL appellant TO execute mortgage
ON its plant. &c. TO secure its bonds, ana
the city TO guarantee principal and lhte-
rest. -
Held: 1. The jurisdiction of equity IN
such cases is well settled. Bull VS.. Reed.
13 Graft rs: Roper vs.. McWhorter, a.
Va. PA: Champion VS.. Zabrieske, 1Vl l..
s. COL This jurisdiction is exercised hot
only where the municipal corporation has
authority under certain conditions, which
have not been complied with, 10 inahe
subscription or lend its credit 10 another
cOrpOratiOn but also in cases where IL mas
no authority to make such subscriptions
or lend such credit under any clfcGm-
stances. The fact that the securities When
issued may be void in the hands OF lnho-
cent holders is no sufficient reason why
20 asrs fl n
NOT have the right to call upon a court OF
equity to prevent their issue ana thus
avoid the wrong and provide Temeuy
which will reach at once the Whole ms
chief secure the rights of ali for the
| present and future. and thus avoid a mui-
| fiplicfty Of suits. Bull VS.. Reed ana
| Champion VS.. Zabrieske, supra.
POWERS OF CORPORATIONS.
! .. Municipal corporations in this state
! possess, and can exercise, the iOlloWlne
| powers. and none other: FIRST, those
| granted in express words; second. those
| necessarily or fairly implied in or Incl
/ dent TO the powers expressly granted,
| and third, those essential to the declared
| objects and purposes Of the corporation
| not simply convenient, but Indispensable
| Winchester VS.. Redmond, SO Va, III, and
| cases cited.
9. The general rule is that the officers
or governing. body in a corporation
whether public or private. have no I'M
| piled power to bind IL as the surety, en-
dorser, or guarantor for another In q
| business in which II has no interest Theil
| authority to bind it by contracts In It's
| name is of the same general character as
that by which a partner binds MS hrm
| The city had no interest in the BONDS, MOI
in the corporation. Its council, therefore
had no power to bind it TO guaranteed
these bonds Municipal corporations arr
mere agencies of the Stale for certain
ends, and I'm the exercise Of their power.
are governed by the same general primer
pies as in the case of principal and agent
The authority TO expend the principal
money i'm doing a particular act is alto
gether different from lending the princi
pals credit to another to enable him u
do the same act for himself, and Il
which, when done, the principal has M
Interest. The open and direct appropria
ton of money has nothing in common
with the contingent and long CONTINUING
contract of suretyship. La. state Banl
vs.. Orleans Nav. CO., La. Ann, 29i, 80
See opinion of Keith. p, in Rich. an
West Point Land, Nav. and Imp. Co. VS.
town of West Point, q S. +. r., 400 OIL
Blake VS.. Mayor, &c. 50 Ca. l7S.