City of East St. Louis v. Maxwell

Citations

• 99 Ill. 439
• 1881 Ill. LEXIS 192

Syllabus

<p>1. Municipal corporation — power to re-fund indebtedness. Where a city council is, by its charter, empowered to borrow money on the credit of the city, not exceeding $100,000, and issue its bonds therefor, followed by a clause that “with the money so borrowed the city council shall first liquidate and discharge all legal indebtedness of the city,” this will authorize the city</p> <p>to take up its floating indebtedness, and the bonds given for the money borrowed, if issued in conformity to the charter in other respects, will be valid and binding.</p> <p>2. Same — special power to issue bonds not modified by act of 1872. Where a , city, under its charter, is authorized to borrow money to liquidate its indebtedness, etc., and to issue bonds for the money so borrowed, without any vote of the people, its power in this respect will not be modified or changed by the general law of 1872, authorizing counties and cities to take up and cancel outstanding bonds and fund the same, but which provides that the new bonds shall be issued only upon a vote of the people of the municipality. The object of the act of 1872 was to provide a remedy for re-funding, corporate indebtedness where the power did not already exist.</p> <p>3. Statute — repeal by implication. The repeal of an existing law by implication is not favored. The repugnance between statutes must be so clear and plain that they can not be reconciled, to justify a resort to the doctrine of a repeal by implication.</p> <p>4. A general statute does not, by implication, repeal charters and special acts passed for the benefit of particular municipalities.</p>