City of East St. Louis v. East St. Louis Gas Light & Coke Co.

Citations

• 98 Ill. 415
• 1881 Ill. LEXIS 275

Syllabus

<p>1. Munich?Ai corporations—contracts ultra vires—extent of liability thereon. Although there may he a defect of power in a corporation to make a contract, yet if a contract made by it is not in violation of its charter, or of any statute prohibiting it, and the corporation has by its promise induced a party relying on the promise and in execution of the contract, to expend money and perform his part thereof, the corporation will be liable on the contract.</p> <p>2. Same—application of the rule—former decision. This doctrine was applied in its full extent in the case of Bradley v. Ballard, 55 111. 413, though that being the case of a private corporation, it was there said there might be a difference with respect to municipal corporations, and that their debts illegally contracted by their officers would not be binding upon tax-payers.</p> <p>3. However, where the contract of a municipal corporation has no element of illegality, the objection made to it only alleging a defect of power in respect to the term of its duration, the doctrine that where a corporation has received benefits under a contract which is merely ultra vires, it shall pay for those benefits, should apply to the municipal corporation with equal force as in any case of a private corporation.</p> <p>4. Same—of a contract by the diy of East St. Louis to light Us streets with gas. The city of East St. Louis entered into a contract with a private corporation which was organized for the purpose of the manufacture of gas, for the lighting of the streets of the city for a period of thirty years. In pursuance of the terms of the contract, the gas company extended its main pipes and erected lamp-posts from time to time, as provided by ordinances of the city, and for several years, without objection on the part of the city, furnished gas for the lighting of the streets. In a suit by the gas company against the city to recover for gas previously furnished under the contract, it was objected on the part of the