Court Opinion

ID: 9577456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:35:08.183012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:38.089296
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the result in this case upon the ground the transfer of the bare legal title had no effect upon the public for whose benefit the property is held.
Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 U. S. 161, 28 S. Ct. 40, 52 L. Ed. 151, was concerned with property used for governmental purposes involved in the consolidation of two cities. The opinion distinguished between property held for governmental purposes and property held for proprietary use in this manner: “It will be observed that in describing the absolute power of the State over the property of municipal corporations we have not extended it beyond the property held and used for governmental purposes. Such corporations are sometimes authorized to hold and do hold property for the same purposes that property is held by private corporations or individuals. The distinction between property owned by municipal corporations in their public and governmental capacity and that owned by them in their private capacity, though difficult to define, has been approved by many of the state courts (1 Dillon, Municipal Corporations, 4th ed., sections 66 to 66a, inclusive, and cases cited in note to 48 L. R. A. 465), and it has been held that as to the latter class of property the legislature is not omnipotent.”
A municipality, in the operation of a public utility, acts in its private and proprietary capacity, and such property is generally not subject to appropriation or complete control by the state except by the exercise of eminent domain. 2 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d Ed.), § 4.132, p. 215.
Clinton, J., joins in this concurrence.