The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1905-12-01

too high, indebtedness thereafter IN
Cured in the prosecution OF the en-
terprise would nevertheless be valid,
because the law is not so unreasonable
as to require in such circumstances the
waste of the public funds which would
be consequent upon the abandonment
OF the work in an incomplete condl-
ton. Judicial expression as to rhis
limitation upon the power of mun1c-
ipal officers to contract debts IN the
name of the corporations, which we
think should be insisted on, is not as
explicit as might be desired, but this
view is clearly intinated in the very
strong opinion of the court delivered
by Mr.. Justice Bradley in Nashville VS..
Ray, supra. And the view OF Judge
Dillon is that the usual grants OF nlu-
nicipal powers contemplates that the
expense of the execution Of such
powers shall be met year by year
from revenue derived from current
taxation and other ordinary sources.
* * x is not an authority to the con-
trary, for there one of the bonds in
issue was dated February II, 1861, and
the other June 4, 1861, and both were
payable January I, 1862. * * * x
The endorsement of note given by
a municipal corporation which has no
power to borrow money or which has
not exercised such power in compli-
ance with the conditions required by
law, cannot avail to give it validity.
The Bank of Prosperity, therefore,
cannot stand on any higher ground
than the Palmetto Bank and Trust
Company There was never any pow
er. either real or apparent, to give the
note and being therefore void from
the beginning, no force could be Civ
en- it by endorsement Even when
the power to borrow money is ex-
pressly given, though the hold r OF
the paper is not bound to see that the
money is properly and lawfully is
sued. The authorities to this effect
are so numerous that we refer only to
Tones VS.. Camden, x x
Under the principles Of law to which
we have adverted the conclusion can
not be avoided that the note held by
the Bank of Prosperity having been
given for borrowed money is not
valid obligation of the town. Vi
course if thu. instrument here under
consideration, in form note, is TO be
regarded bond, that would be an ad-
ditional reason FOR holding it void, for
it is not pretenced there was any COM
oliance with the constitutional con-
ditions essentisl TO the validity OF
uanicipal bono issue. The question
is not a practical one in this case be-
cause the instrument is invalid even
if. it be regar led as a note since 1t
was given for borrowed money.
The court does not, however, wish
to be understood as asserting 70 the
proposition urged by counsel for the
plaintiffs that paper in form prom
issory note becomes a municipal bond
merely because it has affixed the seal
Of the corporation. X.
Regarding: the note entirely void
snd therefore eliminated from the
transaction, it is still to be considered
whether the bank could recover the
amount loaned for which the note
was given as money had and received
BY the town; not because it had been
loaned TO the town or because its Of
ficers had borrowed it and promised
to pay it, but because it was money
of another used by the town for le-
gitimate corporate purposes authorlz--
ed by law. Cogent argument may be
made and strong authority adduced
on both sides OF this question. The
argument against such recovery is
stated with great force by Beasley, **
The view expressed in these and 9th
er cases is that to allow recovery
for money had and received while de-
nying the power to corporate officers