Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/184/450.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 06:53:51+00:00

Document:
'By the above act of the general assembly of Illinois, it was provided that whenever one or more owners or occupants of lands desired to construct 'a drain or drains, ditch or ditches, across the lands of others, for agricultural and sanitary purposes, such person or persons may file a petition in the county court of the county in which the drain or drains, ditch or ditches, shall be proposed to be constructed, setting forth the necessity of the same, with a description of its or their proposed starting point, route, and terminus, and if it shall be deemed necessary for the drainage of the land of such petitioners that a levee or other work be constructed, the petitioners shall so state, and set forth a general description of the same as proposed, and may pray for the appointment of commissioners for the construction of such work, pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.' 1.
'The act required notice by publication to be given of any petition filed under its provisions, and that: 'Such notice shall state when and in what court the petition is filed, the starting point, route, and terminus of the proposed drain or drains, ditch or ditches, or levees, and, if a levee or other work is intended [184 U.S. 450, 452] to be constructed in connection therewith, shall so state, and at what term of court the petitioners will ask a hearing upon such petition.' 2.
'If the drain or drains, ditch or ditches, levee or other work proposed to be constructed, was to pass through or over, or be constructed upon, lands lying in different counties, the petition could be filed in the county court of either county. 4.
'The court in which the petition was filed was empowered to determine all matters pertaining to the subject-matter of the petition.
'If it appeared that the proposed drain or drains, ditch or ditches, levee or other work, was necessary or would be useful for the drainage of the lands for agricultural and sanitary purposes, the court was required to so find, and appoint three competent persons as commissioners to lay out and construct such proposed work. 5.
'It was made the duty of the commissioners to examine the lands proposed to be drained, and those over or upon which the work was proposed to be constructed, and determine: '(1) Whether the starting point, route, and terminus of the proposed drain or drains, ditch or ditches, and if a levee or other work is proposed, the proposed location thereof, is or are in all respects proper or most feasible, and if not, what is or are so; (2) The probable cost of the proposed work, including all incidental expenses, and the expenses of the proceeding therefor; (3) What lands will be injured thereby, and the probable aggregate amount of all damages such lands will sustain by reason of the laying out and construction of the proposed work; (4) What lands will be benefited by the construction of the proposed work, and whether the aggregate amount of benefits will equal or exceed the costs of constructing such work, including all incidental expenses and costs of the proceeding.' 9.
'If the commissioners found and reported that the expense would more than equal the benefits, the proceedings were to be dismissed; if less, then they were to have plans, profiles, surveys, and specifications made, and report the same to the court. 10, 11. [184 U.S. 450, 453] 'The commissioners were not confined to the point of commencement, route, or terminus of the drains or ditches, or to the number, extent, or size of the same, or the location, plan, or extent of any levee or other work, as indicated in the petition. But they were directed to locate, design, lay out, and plan the same as they thought would drain the petitioners' land with the least drainage, and for the greatest benefit of all the lands to be affected thereby. All plans proposed by the commissioners could be changed by the court on the application by them or by any person interested. 12.
'The act required due notice by publication to be given of any application to confirm the report, and the privilege was given to all presons interested to appear and contest its confirmation or to ask any modification thereof. If no objections were made to the report, or if the objections made to it were not well taken, it was to be confirmed. If the court was of opinion that the report should be modified, it was given authority to make such modification as would be equitable. 13, 14.
'If the report was confirmed, then the court was authorized to impanel a jury of twelve men competent to serve as jurors, who, being duly sworn, were required to assess damages and benefits according to law; or the court could direct that a jury be impaneled before a justice of the peace for the assessment of damages and benefits, in which case the commissioners could apply to any justice of the peace in the county, who should immediately, without the formality of any written application, proceed to summon and impanel a jury of six men competent to serve as jorors, who should be sworn in the same manner as was provided in case of a jury impaneled by the court in which the proceeding is pending, the justice to enter upon his docket a minute of such proceeding before him, and the names of the jurors. 16.
'The duty of the jury was to examine the land to be affected by the proposed work; ascertain to the best of their ability and judgment the damages and benefits sustained by or accruing to the land affected by the construction of the proposed work; make out an assesment roll, in which should be [184 U.S. 450, 454] set down in proper columns the names of owners, when known, a description of the premises affected, in words or figures, or both, as was most convenient, the number of acres in each tract, and, if damages were allowed, the amount of the same; and in case damages were allowed to, and benefits assessed against, the same tract of land, the balance, if any, should be carried forward to a separate column for damages or benefits, as the case might be. 17.
'In making the assessment the jury were required to award and assess damages and benefits in favor of and against each tract of land separately, in the proportion in which such tract of land would be damaged or benefited; and in no case should any tract of land be assessed for benefits in a greater amount than its proportionate share of the estimated cost of the work and expenses of the proceeding, nor in a greater amount than it would be benefited by the proposed work, according to the best judgment of the jury. 18.
'The commissioners, or any person who made objection to the assessment, were given the right of appeal from the finding of the jury. If, upon such appeal, there were corrections of the assessment, or if the assessment roll was confirmed, then the roll was to be spread upon the record, with right of appeal or writ of error therefrom. 24, 26.
'At the time of confirming the assessment the court could order the assessment of benefits to be paid in instalments of such amounts and at such times as would be convenient for the accomplishment of the proposed work; otherwise, the whole amount should be payable immediately, upon the confirmation, and should be 'a lien upon the lands assessed until paid.' 27.
'It was made the duty of the clerk, immediately after the entry of the order of confirmation, to make out and certify to the commissioners a copy of the assessment roll, and also to make out and deliver to the commissioners separate copies of the same, pertaining to the lands situated in different counties, to be recorded in the recorder's office of the respective counties in which the lands were situated, and which should be notice of the lien thereon to all person. 28.
'Upon receiving a certified copy of such assessment, the commissioners [184 U.S. 450, 455] could proceed to collect the same, or any instalment thereof, or certify the assessment of any instalment thereof which they might be entitled to collect at the time to the county clerk of the county in which the lands assessed were situated, who was required to 'extend the same, in a separate column, upon the proper tax books for the collection of state and county taxes: Provided, the owner, agent, or occupant of any land through or on which any drain, ditch, or levee shall be constructed shall have the right, under the direction of said commissioners, within such time as they shall prescribe, to construct such drain, ditch, or levee, or any part thereof, at his own cost; and in case he shall so construct the same, he shall be allowed for the value thereof upon his assessment.' 29.
'In case the assessment for benefits should be payable in instalments, such instalments were to draw interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the time they became payable till they were paid, and the interest could be collected and enforced as part of the assessment. 30.
" 34. The commissioners, when appointed and qualified pursuant to this chapter, may do any and all acts that may be [184 U.S. 450, 456] necessary in and about the surveying, laying out, constructing, repairing, altering, enlarging, cleaning, protecting and maintaining any drain, ditch, levee, or other work for which they shall have been appointed, including all necessary bridges, crossings, embankments, protections, dams, and side drains, and may employ all necessary agents and servants, and enter into all necessary contracts, and sue and be sued.
" 45. Any person who shall wrongfully and purposely fill up, cut, injure, destroy, or in any manner impair the usefulness of any drain, ditch, or other work constructed under this chapter, or that may have been heretofore constructed, for the purposes of drainage or protection against overflow, may be fined in any sum not exceeding $200, to be recovered before a justice of the peace in the proper county; or if the injury be to a levee, whereby lands shall be overflowed, he may, on conviction in any court of competent jurisdiction, be fined in any [184 U.S. 450, 457] sum not exceeding, $5,000, or imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the court. All complaints under this section shall be in the name of the people of the state of Illinois, and all fines when collected shall be paid over to the proper commissioners, to be used for the work so injured.
" 46. In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding section, the person so wrongfully and purposely filling up, cutting, injuring, destroying, or impairing the usefulness of any such drain, ditch, levee, or other work, shall be liable to the commissioners having charge thereof for all damages occasioned to such work, and to the owners and occupants of lands for all damages that may result to them by such wrongful act, which may be recovered before a justice of the peace, if within his jurisdiction, or before any court of competent jurisdiction.' Ill. Laws 1871, 1872, pp. 356-365.
'In conformity with the order of the court, the commissioners issued bonds from time to time, upon estimates made by the engineer as the work progressed, to be used in the construction [184 U.S. 450, 460] and completion of the work. They were delivered directly to the contractors as they were earned. The first issue of bonds amounted to $499, 500, of which Francis Palms purchased $202,500. A second issue was made, amounting to $148,500, which were also purchased by him. That issue was the result of a second petition under the act of 1871, proceedings under which resulted in further assessments.
'It may be here stated that by an act of the general assembly of Illinois, approved April 9, 1872, it was provided that whenever it appeared by the findings of the court before which proceedings were pending or might be had, under the act of April 24, 1871, that any drain, ditch, levee, or other work authorized by that act to be made would be of public benefit for the promotion of the public health, or in reclaiming or draining lands, the same should be deemed 'a public work;' and that it should be lawful for the commissioners appointed under the act of 1871 to register at the office of the auditor of public accounts any bonds issued by them under order of court; such registration to show the date, amount, number, maturity, and rate of interest of the bonds, and the fact of such registration to be certified by the auditor, under his seal of office, upon each bond. The act contained other provisions, but it is not necessary to refer to them.
"No. 6. United States of America. $500.
"The commissioners appointed by the county court of Pike county and state of Illinois, on the petition of John Morris and others, to locate and construct a levee on the Mississippi river, in the counties of Adams, Pike, and Calhoun, by virtue of an act of the general assembly of the state of Illinois entitled 'An Act to Provide for the Construction and Protection of Drains, Ditches, Levees, and Other Works,' and by power vested in them by said act, acknowledge themselves, as such commis- [184 U.S. 450, 461] sioners, held and firmly bound unto John G. Wheelock or bearer in the sum of five hundred dollars, lawful money of the United States, payable in the city of New York, at the bank or agency used by the treasurer of the state of Illinios, on the first day of October, A. D. 1882, with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum, interest payable on the first day of July in each year, on the surrender of annexed coupons as severally due.
"This bond is one of a series of five hundred thousand dollars issued for the purpose aforesaid, and after an order of the county court of Pike county aforesaid approving of the assessment made by a jury of the cost of said levee.
"In witness whereof, the said commissioners,' etc.
'Annual interest coupons, payable to bearer, were attached to each bond.
"I, Charles E. Lippincott, auditor of public accounts of the state of Illinois, do hereby certify that the within bond has been registered in this office this day pursuant to the provisions of an act entitled 'An Act to Provide for the Registration of Drainage and Levee Bonds, and Secure the Payment of the Same,' approved April 9th, 1872, and in force July 1st, 1872.
'But the court proceeded to observe that the decision could be placed on the ground that the general assembly possessed no power under the Constitution to vest commissioners or juries selected, or the county court, with authority to assess and collect taxes or special assessments for the contemplated improvement. It said: 'Section 5, article 9, of the Constitution of 1848, which declared 'the corporate authorities of counties, townships, school districts, cities, towns, and villages may be vested with power to assess and collect taxes for corporate purposes, such taxes to be uniform in respect to persons and property within the jurisdiction of the body imposing the same,' was always construed by the decisions of this court as a limitation upon the power of the general assembly to grant the right to assess and collect taxes to any other than the cor- [184 U.S. 450, 464] porate or local authorities of the municipalities or districts to be taxed. Directors for Leveeing Wabash River v. Houston, 71 Ill. 318; Harward v. St. Clair & M. Levee & Drainage Co. 51 Ill. 130; People ex rel. Wilson v. Salomon, 51 Ill. 37; Gage v. Graham, 57 Ill. 144; Hessler v. Drainage Comrs. 53 Ill. 105. It was also held that the power in the legislature was subject to the further limitation that a local burden of taxation or special assessments could not be imposed upon a locality without the consent of the taxpayers to be affected. That section of the Constitution of 1870, upon this subject, provides: 'The general assembly may vest the corporate authorities of cities, towns, and villages with power to make local improvements by special assessments, or by special taxation of contiguous property, or otherwise. For all other corporate purposes, all municipal corporations may be vested with authority to assess and collect taxes, but such taxes shall be uniform in respect to persons and property within the jurisdiction of the body imposing the same.' The clause in the present Constitution, like that in the Constitution of 1848, must be construed as a limitation on the power of the legislature. Giving it that construction, the general assembly can only vest cities, towns, and villages with power to make local improvements by special assessments or special taxation upon contiguous property benefited by such improvement. By necessary implication, it is inhibited from conferring that power upon other municipal corporations or upon private corporations. Only cities, towns, and villages are within the constitutional provisions; and, although other municipal corporations may be vested with power to assess and collect taxes for corporate purposes, the limitation is absolute, such taxes shall be uniform in respect to persons and property within the jurisdiction imposing the same. With equal propriety, this clause of the present Constitution must be regarded as restricting the general assembly in conferring the power to levy and collect taxes, either general or special, to the mode and manner therein indicated. We do not understand the legislature possesses plenary power, unlimited and unrestricted, to invest whomsoever it may choose with authority to assess and collect either special assessments [184 U.S. 450, 465] or taxes for every conceivable purpose. As we have seen, only cities, towns, and villages may levy special assessments or special taxation for local improvements, and all other municipalities can only be vested with jurisdiction to assess and collect taxes for corporate purposes, and that, too, under the positive inhibition such taxes shall be uniform in respect to persons and property. It would seem, therefore, to follow, as a corollary from the propositions stated, that neither the commissioners nor the juries selected, nor the county court, is such a body as, under the Constitution, may be given power to make local improvements by special assessments or by special taxation upon contiguous property. There is still another consideration that has an important bearing upon the decision of the case. The clause of the Constitution we have been considering, like that in the Constitution of 1848, must be understood, in the light of the decisions of this court, as forbidding the general assembly from imposing a burden by taxation upon any locality, without the consent of the citizens affected. Under this law, the people whose property is subject to taxation or assessments have never given any consent to it, if we exclude those who may have signed the petition addressed to the county court. No opportunity was afforded them to do so, nor does the law make any provision for submitting the question to a vote, to ascertain the will of those whose property is subjected to this local burden. It is imposed upon them under the statute, by the decision of the county court. Obviously, that section of the Constitution that declares 'the general assembly may pass laws permitting the owners or occupants of lands to construct drains or ditches, for agricultural and sanitary purposes,' implies that the community whose property is to be taxed may have the right of election in the matter. Otherwise, an onerous burden may be imposed upon them, without their consent, and such proceedings might be had as would result in the deprivation of property. How can the land owners be permitted to construct drains and ditches, unless some election is guaranteed to them? The language employed implies voluntary action. Illustration will make the inconsistency of the present law apparent. For example, the privilege is given to any occupant, [184 U.S. 450, 466] as well as the owner of land, of presenting a petition to the county court. Should the construction contended for prevail, a tenant residing upon land adjacent to a river subject to overflow might present a petition, and, under the decision of the court, the work of erecting a levee miles in length, and costing large sums of money, might be entered upon, and the expenses assessed upon the property in proximity to the river that might in any degree be deemed benefited. An intention to confer such unwarranted power upon one man, who would himself be subject to none of the burdens imposed, ought not to be imputed to the legislature. Any laws not permitting an election as to the propriety of undertaking the work are vicious, and within the inhibition of the Constitution. It does not militate against this construction that the landowner may appear before the county court when the petition is presented, and resist the application, or may contest the assessment upon his property when made. Whether the contemplated work shall be undertaken, and his property subjected to taxation, is not made to depend upon his election, but upon the decision of the court. It would be a solecism to call that privilege an 'election."
'It may be well to state in this connection that the supreme court of the United States, in Harter Twp. v. Kernochan, 103 U.S. 562, 570 , 26 S. L. ed. 411, 413, referring to 5, article 9, of the Illinois Constitution, declaring that the corporate authorities of counties, townships, school districts, cities, towns, and villages may be vested with power to assess and collect taxes for corporate purposes, [184 U.S. 450, 467] has said: 'It is the settled law of the state, as heretofore recognized by this court, that this constitutional provision was intended to define the class of persons to whom the right of taxation might be granted, and the purposes for which it might be exercised, and that the legislature could not constitutionally confer that power upon any other than corporate authorities of counties, townships, school districts, cities, towns, and villages, or for other than corporate purposes,' See also Livingston County v. Darlington, 101 U.S. 411 , 25 L. ed. 1017; Weightman v. Clark, 103 U.S. 256, 259 , 26 S. L. ed. 392, 393.
'After the above decision in Webster v. People, certain landowners undertook to provide for the protection of their lands from overflow by the execution of deeds of trust to the commissioners. Under these deeds as much, perhaps, as $30,000 was raised and expended by the commissioners.
'It should be here stated that after the decision in Webster v. People, and after the institution by Palms of the suit in the circuit court of the United States, the following amendment to the Constitution of Illinois was adopted: 'The general assembly of Illinois may pass laws permitting the owners of lands to construct drains, ditches, and levees for agricultural, sanitary, or mining purposes across the lands of others, and provide for the organization of drainage districts, and vest the corporate authority thereof with power to construct and maintain levees, drains, and ditches, and to keep in repair all drains, ditches, and levees heretofore constructed under the laws of this state by a special assessment upon the property benefited thereby.' 1 Starr & C. Anno. Stat. ( Ill.) p. 122.
'Subsequently the legislature of Illinois passed an act which took effect May 29, 1879, entitled 'An Act to Provide for the Construction, Reparation, and Protection of Drains, Ditches, and Levees Across the Lands of Others for Agricultural, Sanitary, and Mining Purposes, and to Provide for the Organization of Drainage Destricts.' 1 Starr. & C. Anno. Stat. ( Ill.) p. 919.
'Some of the defendant in the present case made efforts to secure the passage of the act last referred to. That act provided for the formation of drainage districts with authority not only to construct drains, ditches and levees for agricultural, [184 U.S. 450, 474] sanitary, and mining purposes, but also to maintain and keep in repair any such drains, ditches or levees 'heretofore constructed under any law of this state;' and, in cases where a levee had been theretofore built 'under any law of this state,' the annual assessment for keeping the same in repair was made due and payable on the 1st of September annually.
'Subsequently, on the 26th of January, 1880, some of the landowners whose lands were described and included in the original assessments and in the original bill filed by Palms instituted proceedings under the act of 1879. In their petition they described the route and terminus of the levee, alleging that the levee 'was constructed, under the laws of Illinois then in force, in the counties of Adams, Pike, and Calhoun, for the years 1872, 1873, and 1874.' They further alleged that, by proper repair and maintenance of the levee, the lands aforesaid (which are alleged to be part of the lands described in the original bill and in the present bill, amounting in the aggregate to about 90,000 acres) would be reclaimed and brought into cultivation; that, in addition, it would greatly improve the sanitary condition of the locality through which the levee passed; and that it was absolutely necessary for the health and proper drainage and protection of the said land that the levee be repaired as speedily as possible. They prayed that a drainage district, to be known as 'Sny Island Levee Drainage District,' be formed out of the lands subject to periodical overflow by the Mississippi river in the townships named, for the repair and maintenance of such levee, according to the statute; that commissioners be appointed under the act of 1879, with directions to do all acts provided in the law for repairing levees, ditches, and drains, through assessments to be ordered; and for other and further relief.
'Such proceedings were had that the county court of Pike county duly created the Sny Island Drainage District, and in 1880 it received the surrender of the levee from the original Sny Levee commissioners, and now retains possession and control of the same.
'Palms died on the 24th day of November, 1886, more than six years after the last order made in the suit brought by him in the Federal court. [184 U.S. 450, 475] 'The present suit was brought by his executors; the defendants herein being the surviving commissioners, Wheelock and Jones, and numerous individuals who own lands within the territory described in the proceedings instituted in the county court of Pike county under the act of 1871.
'The bill proceeded upon the general ground that each tract of land in question was chargeable in equity with the amounts assessed against it under the act of 1871, with interest, and that the plaintiffs had a lien on each tract for such sums as had fallen due and might become due under such assessments. It alleged that each defendant owned or claimed one or more tracts (Exhibit A showing a description of the various tracts, and the names of the persons against whom the assessments were made); that each defendant who acquired title to any of the lands after the assessments of 1872 and 1873 did so with full knowledge of such assessments and the above issue of bonds, as well as of the fact that the plaintiffs had purchased the bonds, and that the levee was constructed with the proceeds thereof; that, with like notice and knowledge, each of the defendants had appropriated and used the levee for the protection of their lands, and continued so to do; that all the defendants named in Exhibit A participated in causing said bonds to be issued and sold, and the proceeds expended by actively soliciting the passage of the act of 1871; that before and at the passage of the act of 1871 the reclamation and protection of the lands described in that exhibit had been a subject of consideration and discussion among the owners and occupants of the same, as well as others, and it was understood by all parties interested in such lands that in order to reclaim and protect the same a statute was absolutely necessary, under the provisions of which the persons interested in the lands could be united and organized, and a common agency created, with authority to make all necessary plans, estimates, and contracts for the location of the levee, and to borrow money upon bonds or otherwise, to be secured by assessments or pledges of the lands benefited; that the defendants, through the agency of their codefendant Charles M. Clark, had procured the passage of that statute, and caused its provisions to be made known to the [184 U.S. 450, 476] people interested, and thereupon devised a plan for the organization of a corporation composed of persons interested in the lands, for the purpose of raising money to put the act into effect; that a large number of the defendants subscribed to the capital of that corporation in order to effect the objects of its creation; that the other defendants purchased lands through such last-named landowners, with full notice of the equities of the plaintiffs; that all of the defendants who purchased after May 4, 1878, did so with full notice of said assessments, and that the same were unpaid, and also that said original suit in the Federal court was pending; that certain other defendants participated in causing the said bonds to be issued and sold to the plaintiffs' testator, and the proceeds thereof to be expended in the constructon of the levee, and in causing the said assessments to be made by signing the original petition to the Pike county court in the year 1872; that certain other defendants purchased lands from other landowners who had joined in the petition, with full knowledge of what had previously taken place; that other defendants participated in procuring the bonds to be sold, and the proceeds to be expended as stated, and in causing said assessments, by signing on the 20th day of November, 1874, a petition for a second assessment under the act of 1871; and that other defendants purchased from or through persons of the class last mentioned, with full knowledge of all the facts.
'The plaintiffs also alleged that certain named defendants, after the above decision by the supreme court of Illinois, knowing the levee to be constructed with the plaintiffs' money, and having full notice of all the facts, executed to Jones, Wheelock, and Westlake deeds of trust; that said deeds were made for the purpose of defeating the claims of the plaintiffs, and it was stipulated between the trustees and the last-named defendants that no part of the funds collected by the former should ever be applied to the payment of any indebtedness created by or on account of the original levee; that said deeds of trust continued in force until 1887, when the same were canceled, said Jones, Wheelock, and Westlake having, it is alleged, devised another scheme for defeating the claim of [184 U.S. 450, 477] the plaintiffs; and that certain other defendants purchased from defendants of the class lasst mentioned, with fully notice of all the facts.
'It was further alleged that after the decree of March 13, 1879, namely, on January 26, 1880, certain defendants named filed a petition in the county court of Pike county setting forth that they owned certain lands, and alleging that a certain levee (the one heretofore described) had been constructed under the laws of the state of Illinois; that said petition set forth the purposes for which the levee had been constructed; that the same was in bad repair; that, in the faith that the same would be properly constructed and repaired, they had expended large sums of money, had improved farms, and that all such improvements would be washed away, unless the levee should be repaired and kept up; and that the lands subject to overflow amounted to an aggregate of 90,000 acres. The bill set forth the substance of the petition, and the various steps taken, as already stated, for the formation of a new drainage district, to be known as the 'Sny Island Levee Drainage District,' and alleged that all the defendants so joining had full notice of all the facts and of the making of the assessments aforesaid; that certain other defendants purchased lands from the defendants of the class last mentioned, with notice of all the facts; that certain other named defendants, pursuant to the statute of Illinois approved May 29, 1879, were severally made parties to, and had notice of, all the proceedings for the organization of the Sny Island Levee Drainage District, as well as of the contents of the petition therefor, and were bound by such proceedings and the appropriation of the levee aforesaid; that certain other named defendants acquired title to said lands, or interests therein, after July 26, 1880, and were bound by said proceedings and the appropriation of said levee; that certain other defendants named were heirs at law and took title to portions of said lands from ancestors who took part in some or all of the aforesaid proceedings; that certain other defendants had acquired title to some of said lands by accepting deeds of conveyance expressly recognizing the lien of plaintiffs on said tracts; and that every one of the present defendants had full [184 U.S. 450, 478] notice of the claims of plaintiffs and of the facts aforesaid; and that all of the defendants now appropriated said levee and other works and refuse to contribute anything to the payment of the plaintiffs.
'The bill alleged that the Sny Island Levee Drainage District had every year made large assessments, and, contriving and intending to defeat the plaintiffs, had caused many of the tracts of land to be sold for nonpayment of such assessments (such sales, it was alleged, being merely colorable, as against the rights of the plaintiffs, and mere clouds on the title to said land); that before the construction of said levee the lands were wet, and not worth exceeding 50 cents per acre; that the average amounts assessed against the lands for the cost of the levee was greatly in excess of the then value of the lands, but it was expected that the work would, when constructed, drain every tract, and so enhance the value of the same as to make the lands ample security for the money borrowed; that the plaintiffs, relying on this and on the assurances of the landowners and commissioners, purchased the bonds in question; and that the lands were enhanced in value by said expenditures until they became worth $25 per acre.
'It was also alleged that, if the levee had been kept up, it would have afforded full protection, and would have caused the lands to have continued to be good security; that defendants had spent some money in repairing said work, but made such improvements and repairs so unskilfully that they were insufficient; and that by neglect of the defendants the lands had again become wet and overflowed, and were not now good security for the plaintiffs.
'The defendants demurred to the bill, and the demurrers were overruled. They subsequently filed answers, which put the plaintiffs upon proof of many essential allegations of their bill, without proof of which independently of the question of law arising upon the face of the bill, no part of the relief asked could have been granted. In the view which is taken of the case by this court it is unnecessary to extend this opinion by setting forth the averments and denials of the several answers.
Mr. Henry M. Duffield for petitioners.
Messrs. Thomas Worthington, W. H. H. Miller, Benjamin Harrison, Asa C. Matthews, Harry Higbee, J. Otis Humphrey, Albert G. Crawford, and Jefferson Orr for respondents.
The circuit court held in substance, among other things, that the decretal order of that court on the bill first filed adjudging the amounts reported by the master to be due the several complainants and giving them liberty to file a supplemental bill against the owners of the lands benefited to compel them to contribute to the payment of the amounts thus reported, was not an adjudication which precluded the landowners from deny- [184 U.S. 450, 481] ing their liability; that as it was thirteen years after the act was declared to be unconstitutional and nine years after leave was given to file the supplemental bill, before any step was taken except as against those who were originally commissioners, there had been such laches as precluded complainants from having the relief sought, the conditions of the property and the relations of the parties having in the meantime greatly changed. The circuit court of appeals held that even when exercising an independent judgment a Federal court should give effect to rules of construction previously established by the highest court of a state, and not act upon a different view unless compelled to do so to prevent an absolute denial of justice; that, applying the settled rule of construction of the state to the state Constitution relating to the subject, the act of April 24, 1871, was unconstitutional, and assessments made thereunder were not enforceable; that the fact alone that landowners advocated and used their influence to secure the passage of a law under which bonds were issued, to be paid by special assessments against their lands, which law was subsequently declared unconstitutional, and the assessments void, did not afford ground on which a court of equity should declare a lien on such lands in favor of the bondholders, in the absence of fraud, and where both the landowners and the purchasers of the bonds acted in the mistaken belief that the bonds were valid; and that where bonds issued by commissioners in payment for the construction of a levee to protect lands from overflow, were void, a court of equity had no power to determine that certain lands received the benefit of the expenditure, and on that ground to declare a lien thereon in favor of the bondholders. The decree of the circuit court was not affirmed on the ground of laches, but the circuit court of appeals nevertheless said: 'The plaintiffs can take nothing, as against the individual landowners, defendants in this cause, by reason of any order made in the suit instituted by Palms in the circuit court of the United States against the commissioners designated under the act of 1871; for the present defendant landowners were not parties to that suit, and could not be concluded by any order made in it. It is evident from the orders entered in that case that Judge [184 U.S. 450, 482] Drummond did not intend to pass upon the rights of the landowners, but was of opinion that if Palms had any ground of action against them, in respect of the lands attempted to be specially assessed under the act of 1871, he must bring them before the court by supplemental bill. He was given leave to file such a bill by an order entered in 1879. But he died in 1886 without availing himself of the privilege so given, although a large amount of interest was unpaid, and although nearly $100,000 of the bonds of the first issue had fallen due. The present bill was not filed until 1889,-about nine years after it could have been filed. If the case depended alone upon the question of laches, there would be strong ground for holding that the plaintiffs and their testator so long delayed the institution of proceedings against the landowners that a court of equity ought to decline giving them any relief. The application of such a principle would be peculiarly appropriate, because it is provided by statute in Illinois that no execution can issue upon a judgment after the expiration of seven years from the time it becomes a lien, except upon the revival of the same by scire facias, and that an action to recover real estate shall be barred by seven years' residence thereon under a title of record, etc.; by seven years' adverse possession under color of title and payment of taxes; or, as to unoccupied land, by seven years' payment of taxes under color of title. 2 Starr & C. Anno. Stat. (Ill.) p. 1386, chap. 77, 6; Id. pp. 1538, 1539, 1547, chap. 83, 4, 6, 7. In this case most of Gallup v. Schmidt, 183 U.S. 307 , ante, 164, Besides, as said in Johnston v. Standard Min. Co. 148 U.S. 360, 370 , 37 S. L. ed. 480, 485, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 585, 589, 'the mere institution of a suit does not of itself relieve a person from the charge of laches,' and 'if he fail in the diligent prosecution of the action, the consequences are the same as though no action had been begun."
The bill purports to be an original bill in the nature of a supplemental bill, supplemental to the bill originally filed by Palms, either by way of enforcing the decretal order entered on that bill, treated as a final decree, or, treating that order as interlocutory merely, of obtaining a decree on the whole case as against new parties. Which view is taken is perhaps not material, for 'where a party returns to a court of chancery to obtain its aid in executing a former decree, it is at the risk of opening up such decree as respects the relief to be granted on the new bill.' Lawrence Mcf. Co. v. Janesville Cotton Mills, 138 U.S. 561 , 34 L. ed. 1008, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 405. And, moreover, the bill is an original bill as to the landowners.
Palms filed that bill, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, May 4, 1878, against Wheelock, Jones, and Westlake, as commissioners appointed under the act of April 24, 1871, praying that the moneys 'loaned and advanced' by complainant to those commissioners be ascertained, and a decree entered that complainant was entitled to a lien on the levee, and other works and lands, acquired by the commissioners, and the assessments for benefits to said lands, which had been made; and further that the commissioners be decreed to proceed at once to collect the assessments, or so much thereof from time to time as would be sufficient to pay the interest and principal payable to complainant as the same fell due, or that the court appoint a receiver or receivers with authority to collect said assessments.
The commissioners were not impleaded as representing the landowners in the litigation. Their duties were such as the [184 U.S. 450, 484] act of 1871 defined, if that act were valid, and their powers were created and limited thereby, and did not include the power to bind all or any of the landowners of the district in such a suit. The suit was brought to compel the commissioners to discharge the duty, under the act, of enforcing the collection of assessments in the interest of the bondholders, as creditors, and in that sense they occupied an adverse relation to the landowners who were quasi debtors.
The commissioners had filed in the county court of Pike county their assessment roll in 1872, and objections thereto by certain landowners having been decided adversely to them by the county court, and, on appeal, by the circuit court of the county, they took the case to the supreme court of the state, which decided that the act of 1871 was unconstitutional. This judgment was pronounced at January term, 1876. It was after this that, interest being overdue on the bonds held by him, Mr. Palms filed his bill. Some other bondholders became parties complaint, and on March 13, 1879, an order was entered permitting complainants to bring the landowners into court and test the question of their liability, and the cause was referred to a master. July 7, 1880, the report of the master was confirmed and the court adjudged and decreed that there was due to Palms $221,228.66, and to various other complainants some thousands of dollars as specified, the whole aggregate sum found due complainants being $ 304,908.26, it being added: 'The above amounts are found due without prejudice.' It was further decreed that the sums of money found due were 'a lien upon the assessments made under the order of the county court of Pike county, in the state of Illinois, upon the lands described in the bound book Exhibit A' as provided in the 27th and 37th sections of the act of April 24, 1871. The order proceeded that it appearing that the commissioners had no moneys in their hands for the payment of the amounts so found due, and that they had taken no steps for the collection of the assessments, it was further ordered by the court 'that the complainants have the right and liberty to proceed in this court in the name of the said defendants as complainants as such commissioners, or in their own names as [184 U.S. 450, 485] complainants against the lands described in the said Exhibit A and the owners thereof, or such of such lands and the owners thereof, or other persons, and said commissioners as they may be advised are liable for or bound to pay the sums found to be due to the complainants as aforesaid, jointly or severally, by a bill or bills, original, supplemental, or otherwise, as they may be advised, for the recovery of the amounts found due them as aforesaid and also for the costs of this suit.' Both these orders show that the circuit judge was of opinion that to subject the lands to the assessments in that suit the landowners must be made parties; and even the amounts found due were in terms so found without prejudice to their rights.
No steps were subsequently taken, and Mr. Palms died November 24, 1886. His executors, on April 22, 1889, filed the present bill against some thousand landowners of the district as well as Wheelock and Jones, two of the alleged levee commissioners, Westlake in the meantime having deceased.
These provisions of the two Constitutions are substantially identical, and while, prior to the act of 1871, the clause of the Constitution of 1870 had not been construed by the supreme court of the state, the similar provision in the Constitution of [184 U.S. 450, 487] 1848 had been construed in several instances. And it was ruled that the right of taxation could not be granted by the general assembly in any form to private persons, or to private corporations; that the provision limited the power of the general assembly to grant the right to assess and collect taxes to the corporate or local authorities of the municipalities or districts to be taxed; that a local burden of taxation or special assessment could not be imposed upon a locality without the consent of the taxpayers to be affected; and that corporate authorities were municipal officers directly elected by the people of the municipality or appointed in some mode to which they had given their assent. Harward v. St. Clair & M. Levee & Drainage Co. 51 Ill. 130; Hessler v. Drainage Comrs. 53 Ill. 105; Lovingston v. Wider, 53 Ill. 302; Wider v. East St. Louis, 55 Ill. 133; People ex rel. Wilson v. Salomon, 51 Ill. 37.
The construction of the state Constitution in Harward's Case and others has been repeatedly recognized by this court as authoritatively established.
And as this was the settled law of the state when these bonds were issued, and the Constitution of 1870 admitted of no other construction, we concur in the opinion that the act of 1871 was repugnant to the Constitution of Illinois; the bonds due under it were void; and the lands intended to be benefited could not be specially assessed by any action taken in confirmity with the provisions of that act.
The case of Blake v. People, 109 Ill. 504, conducts to no other result. That case arose under the act of May 29, 1879, which was passed after the amendment of the state Constitution adopted in 1878. That amendment provided that the general assembly might pass laws permitting the owners of lands to construct drains, ditches, and levees across the lands of others, and to organize drainage districts and vest the corporate authorities thereof with power to construct and maintain levees, drains, and ditches, 'and to keep in repair all drains, ditches, and levees heretofore constructed under the laws of this state, by special assessment upon the property benefited thereby.' The new levee district was organized under this act to repair [184 U.S. 450, 488] the levee which had been built under the invalid law of 1871. The objection was raised by a landowner, on the application of the collector of the county for judgment against his land on an assessment, that the old levee had not been built under a law of the state within the meaning of the act and of the Constitution, because the act of 1871 was no law. The court held that the point should have been raised before the confirmation of the assessment roll, and came too late. The court also held that it could not take judicial notice that the purpose for which the corporation was created was not to keep in repair levees theretofore constructed under a law of the state, but assuming the question to be properly before the court, that while the act of 1871 was unconstitutional as affecting those over whose lands the drains, levees, etc., were to be constructed without the owners' consent, and those against whose property it was proposed to assess the cost of constructing such drains and levees without their consent, yet that there might be some person so situated as to be precluded from raising the question of the validity of the law. And while, strictly speaking, there neither was nor could be any levee in Illinois constructed under a law of the state, yet that the legislature plainly meant to authorize the completion and repair of levees that had been constructed under an act purporting to be a law, though it was not. The court said: 'There was no law in force authorizing the construction of levees over the lands of others (save the act of April 24, 1871) at the time Updike v. Wright and Webster v. Levee Comrs. were decided. To obviate the effect of those decisions-allow the construction of levees, as well as drains, upon the lands of others-and to authorize the formation of municipal corporations for the purpose of constructing drains and levees, the amendment to 31, article 4, was submitted to, and adopted by, the people, at the November election, in 1878. The act of May 29, 1879, but repeats, in this respect, the language of that amendment. The levees, therefore, which must have been referred to, because none other could reasonably have been intended, were the levees which had been constructed, but could not be [184 U.S. 450, 489] kept in repair because of the decisions in Updike v. Wright and Webster v. Levee Comrs.
The act of April 24, 1871, being invalid, the corporate existence of the levee commissioners, and the assessments made at their instance, and the collection of the latter under that act, or under the act of April 9, 1872, entitled 'An Act to Provide for the Registration of Drainage and Levee Bonds, and Secure the Payment of the Same,' failed with it. But it is contended that while all this may be so as to the general public, yet that appellees, or some of them, have so conducted themselves that they are estopped from asserting such invalidity, and that the circuit court should have enforced the assessments exactly as if the law had been a constitutional enactment. The bill sought to collect not only the assessments already made, but asked to have further assessments made to pay the bonds in full, and to maintain and preserve the security; and the court was also asked to declare that the assessments created valid liens upon the lands, and to decree that the bonds sued on were a lien on the assessments and to enforce their collection. In other words, that the court execute the act, either as in itself wholly valid or valid as to these defendants. We are unwilling to assent to the doctrine of legislation by estoppel. The courts cannot by the execution of an unconstitutional law as a law, supply the want of power in the legislative department.
In that case the invalidity of the law grew out of the fact [184 U.S. 450, 490] that the journals of the senate and house did not show the passage of the bill as the Constitution required it to be shown. Bonds had been issued, bought innocently, and the town had paid one instalment of interest, but it was held that the bonds could not be sustained on the doctrine of estoppel. In this case the bonds were signed, issued, and sold by the commissioners, and the interest which was paid was paid by the commissioners. The landowners had no control of the question whether bonds should be issued, and were not in privity of contract with the purchasers of the bonds. As the act, the assessments, and the bonds were void, the landowners, when it was sought to subject their property to those assessments for the payment of the void bonds, could not be estopped on the ground that the law itself, though void, was valid as to them.
Even in the instance of contracts of a corporation beyond the scope of its corporate powers, the law is well settled in this court that nothing which has been done under them or the action of the courts can infuse any vitality into them. Central Transp. Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co. 139 U.S. 24 , 35 L. ed. 55, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 478.
Daniels v. Tearney, 102 U.S. 415 , 26 L. ed. 187, though not precisely in point, is illustrative of the distinction between enforcing an invalid law in an executory way, and awarding relief in respect of things accomplished under it. In that case, the secession convention of the state of Virginia had passed an ordinance providing that any person whose property had been taken on execution might, by giving a bond for the payment of the judgment, have his goods released so long as the law should remain in force. Porter recovered a judgment against Daniels in the circuit court of Jefferson county, and Daniels availed himself of the ordinance by filing the required bond. To a suit brought on the bond by Tearney et al., executors of Porter, after the close of the civil war, the defense was made that the law under which the bond was given was unconstitutional, and so that the bond was void. There was a difference of opinion in the court as to whether the bond was good as a voluntary bond or not, but it was held that, conceding the bond to have been wholly void, the judgment upon it ought not to be reversed, on the principle that where a party has availed himself for his benefit [184 U.S. 450, 491] of an unconstitutional law he is estopped as between himself and others not occupying that position from setting up its unconstitutionality as a defense. The obligee of the bond sued on had not availed himself of the void ordinance, but was deprived of his rights by it. He had not in any way, expressly or impliedly, made himself a party to the illegal proceeding, or affirmatively agreed to take any advantage from it, while the consideration of the bond had been fully received by the obligor, who could not, under such circumstances, be permitted to deny a liability put upon the obligee in invitum.
It follows that this bill cannot be maintained on the theory of the validity of the act of 1871, even though some other equity might have been asserted if in the exercise of reasonable diligence. The result is not inconsistent with the cases that hold that, although a law is found to be unconstitutional, a party who has received the full benefit under it, may be compelled to pay for that benefit according to the terms of the law. This is upon the theory of an implied contract, the terms of which may be sought in the invalid law, and which arises when the full consideration has been received by the party against whom the contract is sought to be enforced.
In the case before us, the landowners did not and could not receive the benefits which it was contemplated would accrue to them from the proceedings if they had been valid. As the circuit court of appeals pointed out what the landowners, who promoted the passage of and proceeded under the act of 1871, had in view 'was not simply to have a levee constructed, but to have a sufficient levee, which could be repaired from time to time and permanently maintained under legal authority.' The scheme embraced not only the construction, but the maintenance of the levee, and must be looked at in its entirety. 'If it be said that the plaintiffs' testator would never have purchased the bonds except in the belief that the act of 1871 was valid, with equal truth it may be said that the landowners never would have sought or desired such legislation except in the belief that the levee would be maintained by the same authority that constructed it.' When the law fell, the method of maintaining it by compulsory process also failed, and if it be said that there [184 U.S. 450, 492] was only a partial failure of consideration, it is plain that the consideration was indivisible, and not susceptible of apportionment, while the evidence demonstrates that the losses suffered by the landowners by reason of the breaking of the levee exceeded the amount of the bonds in question.
The grounds of estoppel claimed in this case seem to be, that one or more of the defendants secured the passage of the act of 1871; that others actively participated as petitioners and otherwise in the organization of the levee district before the bonds were issued; that others who took no part whatever in any of the proceedings, after the bonds were issued and the law was held to be unconstitutional, united in an attempt to maintain and repair the levee by voluntary contributions; that others, who neither said nor did anything, knowing that the proceedings were pending and that the levee was in course of construction, remained quiescent; that others paid interest on their assessments for the years 1873 and 1874; that others participated in the organization of the new and legal levee district after the Constitution of Illinois had been amended and a law passed authorizing the formation of levee districts; and that others purchased lands after the Webster Case was decided, and their deeds contained certain references to the act of 1871.
We think that the evidence fails to show that Palms relied, or had the right to rely, on the acts, or assurances, or silence, of any of these different classes of landowners, and was thereby misled. He purchased the bonds, not of the landowners, or any of them, nor from the levee commissioners, but in the open market, and on the advice of counsel as to the legality of the proceedings. The landowners who participated in any way in the creation of the drainage district were as vitally interested in the matter as any purchaser of bonds could be, and they acted equally in the mistaken belief that the law was valid. It would be a novel idea, as the supreme court of Illinois remarked in Holcomb v. Boynton, 151 Ill. 300, 37 N. E. 1033, 'in the law of estoppel that the doctrine should be applied to a person who has been guilty of no fraud, simply because, under a misapprehension of the law, he has treated as legal and valid an act void and open to the inspection of all.' But we need not pursue the discus- [184 U.S. 450, 493] sion, for, in view of the invalidity of the proceedings, if complainants had a cause of action, that cause of action arose before May 4, 1878, when Palms filed his bill, yet the landowners were not proceeded against until the 22d of April, 1889.
The statute of limitations of Illinois provided that actions on unwritten contracts, express or implied, and all civil actions not otherwise provided for, should be commenced within five years next after the cause of action accrued. Courts of equity usually consider themselves bound by the statutes of limitation which govern courts of law in like cases. In the second aspect of their bill appellants did not rely on their bonds as legal instruments, but they sought the aid of a court of equity for the enforcement of a lien in payment of the bonds by reason of an estoppel in pais, and the cause of action so created would seem to have been barred by that statute. But courts of equity go farther in the promotion of justice, and where laches exist, deny the relief sought, even though the statutory period may not have run under the applicable statute.
The doctrine of courts of equity to withhold relief from those who have delayed the assertion of their claims for an unreasonable length of time is thoroughly settled. Its application depends on the circumstances of the particular case. It is not a mere matter of lapse of time, but of change of situation during neglectful repose, rendering it inequitable to afford relief.
Palms purchased these bonds of the contractors to whom they had been delivered by the commissioners, who assumed a right to issue and make that disposition of them by virtue of the power to borrow money granted by the act of 1871. The enterprise of erecting such a barrier to the incursions of the river was, in its nature, hazardous, and the levee required not only the utmost skill in construction, but the utmost effort and vigilance in its repair and maintenance. The transaction was in its nature speculative as the value of the reclaimed lands depended on the permanency of the structure.
The enforcement of the assessments for benefits on which the payment of the cost of the work depended was resisted from the frist by certain landowners, who had opposed the scheme as attempted to be authorized, and their legality was brought [184 U.S. 450, 494] to the test as soon as in the orderly progress of judicial proceedings it could be done. The result was that in 1876 the act of 1871 was held void and the assessments illegal. In that same year the levee broke and the lands were devastated. In 1877 some of the landowners raised some thousands of dollars, giving trust deeds as security, for the repair of the levee, the money to be devoted to that purpose exclusively, and repairs were made.
May 4, 1878, Mr. Palms filed his bill, to which the landowners were not made parties. The principal of the first and largest assessment was payable one tenth annually beginning with 1882, but the interest, at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from October 1, 1872, was collectible annually, and the interest on the bonds was also payable yearly. The instalments of interest for 1875, 1876, and 1877 had not been paid, and those succeeding remained unpaid.
In 1880 the circuit court entered the order permitting Palms to bring in the landowners by filing a supplemental or an original bill; and in that same year there were numerous breaks in the levee.
During the same year a new drainage district was organized under the provisions of the act of 1879, which had been passed in accordance with the constitutional amendment of 1878. Large assessments were levied upon the lands, aggregating hundreds of thousand of dollars, and the money was put into the property. In 1881 the levee broke again, but the new drainage corporation went on with its work. The levee broke again in 1888, and additional assessments were levied.
Palms did not avail himself of the order, in the original cause, of July 7, 1880. He took no further steps, and died November 24, 1886. His executors filed this bill April 22, 1889. The record affords no explanation of the delay, and it seems to us that this was such laches as forbids relief. To enforce these bonds against those by whose courage, energy, and expenditure the lands have attained whatever value they now possess, would in our judgment be too inequitable to be permitted.
Mr. Palms knew of the decisions of the supreme court of Illinois in the Webster and Updike Cases; of the breaks in the [184 U.S. 450, 495] levee; of the efforts of the landowners to rebuild and maintain it by large expenditures of money; and he could not lie by until after such expenditures, and with the condition of the district and the personnel of its people constantly changing, and then insist that during all this time the parties were under a liability to him which, in equity, they were estopped to deny.
So far as part of the old levee became part of the new levee, the new drainage corporation used it because they could not do otherwise, and besides Palms, as a purchaser of bonds in the open market, was a stranger to the work. Even if the contractors could have claimed an equitable lien on the structure itself, Palms could not, and, indeed, any resort to subrogation is disclaimed by appellant's counsel. Such a claim could not have been successfully maintained under our decision in AEtna L. Ins. Co. v. Middleport, 124 U.S. 534 , 31 L. ed. 537, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625. There the town of Middleport had issued certain bonds to aid in the construction of a railroad; the road was constructed and the bonds delivered to the railroad company in payment of the work, and were afterwards sold to the complainant. The supreme court of the state of Illinois held the bonds void, and a bill was filed in the circuit court of the United States to enforce their collection on the theory of subrogation to the right of the railroad company to enforce the contract evidenced by a vote of the town appropriating the amount involved to pay for the railroad, and the acceptance and fulfilment of the contract by the railroad company. But it was decided that complainant having bought the bonds as negotiable securities from the railroad company could not be substituted to any rights which it might have had against the defendants; that no right of subrogation existed; that subrogation was applicable only in cases where a junior encumbrancer was forced to pay off a superior lien for the protection of his rights, or in some similar case; and that a mere volunteer was not entitled to claim the right.
It is worthy of remark that the decree of the circuit court in that case was placed on the ground that the right of action of the railroad company, resting only in parol, was barred by the statute applicable to contracts not in writing. Blodgett, J., 31 Fed. 874. [184 U.S. 450, 496] Here no bonds were ever sold by the commissioners to Palms or anyone representing him. They were delivered to the contractors and were taken in payment at 90 cents on the dollar of their face value. If the acts of any of the landowners created any equities against them it was in favor of the contractors, and these equities could not be asserted by Mr. Palms, unless by subrogation, which could not be availed of. And if it could be held that the money of Mr. Palms did enter into the construction of the levee, yet it was inextricably intermingled with that furnished by private individuals, by the new levee and drainage district, by three railroad companies, and by the United States government, the total aggregating half a million dollars, from 1877 to 1893.
In Litchfield v. Ballou, 114 U.S. 190 , 29 L. ed. 132, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 820, it was held that a creditor who had loaned to a municipal corporation, in excess of the amount of the indebtedness authorized by the Constitution, money which had been used in part for the construction of public works, was not entitled to a decree in equity for the return of his money, because the municipality had parted with the specific money and it could not be identified; that a bill in equity praying for the return of specific and indentical moneys borrowed by a municipal corporation from complainant in violation of law would not support a general decree that there was due from the municipality to him a sum named, which was equal to the amount borrowed; and further, that a constitutional provision forbidding the municipality from borrowing money operated equally to prevent moneys loaned to it in violation of this provision and used in the construction of a public work, from becoming a lien upon the works constructed with it.
And if in this case any ground of relief on the theory of implied contract ever existed, the want of diligence presented an insuperable bar to its assertion.
Mr. Justice Brown did not hear the argument and took no part in the decision of this case.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.