Salt Lake City v. Hollister
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from the third district court. The opinion states the facts.- A municipal corporation, although regarded as a legal, is not a physical, entity, and is incapable of acting, except within its corporate powers and by its authorized officers or agents. Therefore, the averment that a city has done a certain act involves the assertion of two things; 1. That it had the power under its charter to do it; and 2. That it has exercised that power.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the third district court. The opinion states the facts.- A municipal corporation, although regarded as a legal, is not a physical, entity, and is incapable of acting, except within its corporate powers and by its authorized officers or agents. Therefore, the averment that a city has done a certain act involves the assertion of two things; 1. That it had the power under its charter to do it; and 2. That it has exercised that power. Unless the former be true, the latter is impossible. The charter of the city is a public law of which all persons are bound to take notice: Comp; L.…
1Opinion of the Court
Twiss, J.:
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is a municipality, incorporated by a public act of the territorial legislature in 1850, and since then has continuously existed as such.
*203The defendant is the United States collector of internal revenue for the district óf Utah territory. That in June, 1876, the United States commissioner of internal revenue erroneously set down and assessed against the plaintiff a special tax of ten thousand seven hundred and sixty dollars upon spirits alleged to have been distilled by the plaintiff between the second day of March, A. D. 1867, and the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Louisiana v. WoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- United States v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1873
- City of East St. Louis v. East St. Louis Gas Light & Coke Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1881
- Grogan v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
3Cited by1 opinion
- Fruide v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1902