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

=
against the town of S1,75o evidenced
by three notes for $I5o, $1,000 and
5000, respectively, which would neces-
sarily have to be paid by a future
council, after the expiration of their
term of office, and out of taxes and
licenses to be levied and collected in
another fiscal year. and SO the reve-
nues of a future fiscal year, would
have to be applied to the payment OF
debt contracted in prior year.
From the cash book of the town it
appears that the total income of the
town, including cash on hand, from
April ~, 1908 to April 26, 1904, was
81 ,So6.o5, and the expenditures S1,743.-
o6, which included payment of the
$3.50 note for the purchase money OF
the lot and Of the 5000 note Of the
Bank of Prosperity. The total in
come of the town from January l.,
1908 to January I, 1904 was S1,5o4.H
and from January I, 1904 to Novem-
Der I, 1904, ST ,2o3, showing that at no
time have funds been on hand with
which to pay the note for $1,000 held
by the Bank of Prosperity.
At the time it was determined to
erect this building the council had no
place to meet, the market was in bad
condition, and the guard-house total
" inadequate; and therefore it was
necessary to erect building OF some
kind for municipal purposes. When
completed the town hall cost ,S2,2o1.-
OF, but the work appears to have been
done cheaply and the building to be
quite satisfactory in every way.
During the progress of the work on
the building itemized statements OF
the receipts and expenditures of thu
town, showing the amount OF its In
debtedness and to whom due, were
published in the newspapers or post
ed in public places; and any other
information of this kind could have
been had from the clerk and treasurer.
Plaintiffs acquiesced in the mourning
of these debts and the building of the
town hall TO the extent of making
no complaint until the bringing of this
action.
We consider first the general prir-
c;ples of law applicable to the case,
and then the effect of the Constitu-
ton and the statute law of the State.
Municipal corporations have only
such powers as are granted to them
by the Constitution or by statute
either expressly or by necessary I'M
plication. The following statement
of the law from I Dillon on Municl-
pal Corporations, Sec. 50, is support
ed by practically unbroken authority;
"It is a general and undisputed propo-
sition of law that municipal corpora
ton possesses and can exercise the
following powers and no others:
First, those granted in express words;
second, those necessarily or finally
implied in or incident to the powers
expressly granted; third, those essen
tial to the declared objects and pur-
poses of the corporation,-not simply
convenient, but indispensable. Any
fair, reasonable doubt concerning the
existence of power is resolved Iby the
courts against the corporation, and
the power is denied" Heise V. Town
Council, 6 Rich. 4o4; State ex rel. At
kins V. Mayesville, 12 S. c. 76; Blake,
V. Columbia Club V. McMaster, IS
S. C. /; Mauldin V. City County AZ
S. c. 2o3.
The power to borrow money is not
a necessary incident of municipal life.
and hence does not exist unless eA-
presslv given. or unless some duties
are imposed or powers conferred on
the corporation which manifestly
could not be exercised ar all without
borrowing money. The two leading
cases on the subject are Mayor Of
Nashville VS.. Ray, 10 Wall. 468,22, l..
ed. 164; and Hackettstown VS.. Swack-
hamer. 81 N. J. L. 1o1. Authorities
to the same effect will be found COL