New Orleans v. New Orleans Water Works Co.

Citations

• 142 U.S. 79
• 12 S. Ct. 142
• 35 L. Ed. 943
• 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2569

Syllabus

<p>If it appear in a case, brought here in error from a state court, that the decision of the state court was made’upon rules of general jurisprudence, or that the case was disposed of there on other grounds, broad enough in themselves to sustain the judgment without considering the Federal question, and that such question was not necessarily involved, the jurisdiction of this court will not attach.</p> <p>Before this court can be asked to determine whether a statute has impaired the obligation of a contract, it must be made to appear that there was a legal contract subject to impairment, and some ground to believe that it has been impaired.</p> <p>In order to constitute a violation of the constitutional provision against depriving a person of his own property without due process of law, it should appear that such person has a property in the particular thing of . which he is alleged to have been deprived.</p> <p>The contract between the city of New Orleans and the Water Works Company, which forms the basis of these proceedings, was void as being ultra vires; and, having been repudiated by the city, cannot now be set up by it as impaired by subsequent state legislation.</p> <p>A municipal corporation, being a mere agent of the State, stands in its governmental or public character, in no contract relation with its sovereign, at whose pleasure its charter may be amended, changed or revoked without the impairment of any constitutional obligation; but such a corporation, in respect of its private or proprietary rights and interests, may be entitled to constitutional protection.</p> <p>There was no contract between the city and the Water Works Company, which was protected against state legislation by the Constitution of the United States.</p> <p>The repeal of a statute providing that a municipal government may set off the taxes of a water company against the company’s rates for water, and the substitution of a different scheme of payment in its place, does not deprive th