Haeussler v. City of St. Louis
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Row. Wm. M. Kinsey, Judge. (1) A municipal corporation has no power to borrow money and issue its negotiable bonds for corporate purposes, unless authority to do so be expressed in its charter or necessarily implied as being essential to carry into effect powers which are expressly granted.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Row. Wm. M. Kinsey, Judge. (1) A municipal corporation has no power to borrow money and issue its negotiable bonds for corporate purposes, unless authority to do so be expressed in its charter or necessarily implied as being essential to carry into effect powers which are expressly granted. Barnet v. City of Denison, 145 U. S. 135; City of Break-am v. Bank, 144 U. S. 173; Luther v. Wheeler, 4 L. R. A. 750; sec. 10, art. 5, Charter; St. Louis v. Telephone Co., 96 Mo. 623; Joplin v. Leckie, 78 Mo. App. 8. (2) The Act of 1905 (Laws 1905, p. 94), while…
1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.
Plaintiffs, resident taxpayers of the city of St. Louis, for themselves, and for other taxpayers of said city who may choose, to join them, bring their action in equity to restrain the city of St. Louis and the other defendants, Wells, Player and Franciscus, who are respectively the mayor, comptroller and treasurer of said city, to enjoin the issuance and sale of thirty-five hundred negotiable bonds of the city of St. Louis, of the denomination of one thousand dollars, each numbered respectively from one to thirty-*663five hundred, inclusive, which bonds they charge the defendants are threatening…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited23 opinions
- M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Osborn v. Bank of United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Joy v. St. LouisSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Van Brocklin v. TennesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Milheim v. Moffat Tunnel Improvement DistrictSupreme Court of Colorado · 1922
- Dysart v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1928
- Klein v. City of LouisvilleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1928
- Lord v. City & County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1914
- Halbruegger v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1924
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.