Coleman v. Borough of New Kensington

Citations

• 140 F. 684
• 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4822

Syllabus

<p>1. Municipal Corporations — Warrant as Evidence oe Indebtedness — Right oe Action.</p> <p>A warrant or voucher, issued by a Pennsylvania borough and signed by its proper officers, acknowledged an indebtedness to the payee in a stated sum for paving material furnished, which the borough promised to pay in one year, with interest, on presentation of the warrant, with the voucher printed thereon, signed by the payee. The warrant was issued on an order given by the paving contractor, accepted by the borough officers, and the voucher was duly signed by the payee. Held that, while the instrument'was not negotiable as commercial paper and was subject to defenses in the hands of a transferee, it was an evidence of indebtedness which would support an action by the payee, who was not compelled to sue in right of the contractor.</p> <p>2. Same — Validity oe Indebtedness — Constitutional Limitation.</p> <p>Under the law of Pennsylvania a bonded indebtedness of a borough, made by authority of a vote of the electors, is to be deducted in computing the indebtedness of the borough which, under the constitutional limitation, mayl be incurred without a vote; nor is a debt for street improvements to be paid by special assessments on abutting property subject to such limitation.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — Constitutional and statutory limitations of municipal indebtedness, see note to City of Helena v. Mills, 36 C. C. A. 6.]</p>