L. Waterbury & Co. v. City of Laredo
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Bexar. Tried below before the Hon. Geo. H. Noonan. Appellants, as the assignees of Edmund J. Davis, brought this suit against the city of Laredo, C. M. Macdonnel and Raymond Martin.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Bexar. Tried below before the Hon. Geo. H. Noonan. Appellants, as the assignees of Edmund J. Davis, brought this suit against the city of Laredo, C. M. Macdonnel and Raymond Martin. The suit was based upon two contracts between Davis and the city of Laredo, the first dated January 25, 1876, by which the city employed Davis as an attorney-at-law to defend its possession and secure its rights to certain ferry privileges, the employment to continue for a term of five years, he to have one-third of the annual rent of the ferry for the term of five years. The second contract ivas made…
1Opinion of the Court
Watts, J. Com. App.
In the court below it was successfully asserted that the contract sued on was ultra vires; that is, not such as the authorities of the city of Laredo had the power to make; also that the contract was void as being against public policy. And these are the questions for consideration and determination in the disposition of this appeal.
With respect to the power of corporations, the rule stated by the supreme court of the United States in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat., 578, in these words, “A corporation being a mere creature of the law, possesses only those…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Davis v. BurneyTexas Supreme Court · 1883
- City of Laredo v. Macdonnell & the Ferry Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1880
- Lecatt v. SalleeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1836
3Cited by16 opinions
- Williams v. CastlemanTexas Supreme Court · 1922
- Grayson County v. HarrellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1918
- City of Paris v. SturgeonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1908
- L. Waterbury & Co. v. City of LaredoTexas Supreme Court · 1887
- Titsworth v. TitsworthSupreme Court of Kansas · 1889
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.