Ottawa v. Carey
Citations
- 108 U.S. 110
- 2 S. Ct. 361
- 27 L. Ed. 669
- 1883 U.S. LEXIS 1012
Syllabus
<p>Municipal Bonds — Municipal Corporations.</p> <p>1.. Municipal corporations, being created only to aid the State government in the legislation and administration of local affairs, possess only such powers as are expressly granted, or as may be implied because essential to carry into effect those which ar^ expressly granted.</p> <p>2. Bonds issued by a municipal corporation, but not under either a general authority to. borrow for corporate purposes, or a special legislative authority to borrow for purposes within the power of the legislature to confer, are void in the hands of a person who is not an innocent Iona fide holder without notice.</p> <p>3. A municipal corporation authorized by its charter “to borrow money on the credit of the city and to issue bonds therefor,” and by special act to borrow á named sum “ to be expended in developing .the natural advantages of the city for manufacturing purposes,” is not thereby authorized to issue bonds by way of donation to an individual to aid in developing the water power of the city, and is not liable to an action upon such bonds by one who takes them with notice of the facts.</p>
Judges: Waite
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
38 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Cole v. La GrangeSupreme Court· 1885-01-05· cited 99×
- Speed v. Common CouncilMichigan Supreme Court· 1894-01-05· cited 57×
- Barnett v. DenisonSupreme Court· 1892-05-02· cited 48×
- Scott County v. Advance-Rumley Thresher Co.Eighth Circuit· 1923-03-16· cited 28×
- Ronnow v. City of Las VegasNevada Supreme Court· 1937-02-05· cited 25×
- Mauldin v. Council of GreenvilleSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1890-04-21· cited 23×
- Cumnock v. City of Little RockSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1922-07-03· cited 21×
- Attorney General v. StrattonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1907-02-11· cited 15×
- Moreland v. MillenMichigan Supreme Court· 1901-04-25· cited 15×
- State v. Suwannee County Development Authority of Suwannee CountySupreme Court of Florida· 1960-07-20· cited 14×
- Knapp v. Kansas CityMissouri Court of Appeals· 1892-03-07· cited 14×
- City of Shreveport v. PrescottSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1899-04-17· cited 14×
- Hoskins v. City of Orlando, Fla.Fifth Circuit· 1931-08-18· cited 13×
- City of Fergus Falls v. Fergus Falls Hotel Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1900-06-11· cited 13×
- State ex rel. Potter v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court· 1907-03-01· cited 12×
- Coquard v. Village of OquawkaIllinois Supreme Court· 1901-10-24· cited 12×
- Portis v. Board of Public Utilities, LepantoSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1948-04-05· cited 11×
- Gardenhire v. StateArizona Supreme Court· 1923-12-22· cited 11×
- Murphy v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of HudsonSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1918-06-17· cited 11×
- Hurley v. Inhabitants of TrentonSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1901-06-24· cited 9×
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Burr v. City of CarbondaleIllinois Supreme Court· 1875-01-15· cited 27×
- Ottawa v. National BankSupreme Court· 1882-04-24· cited 21×
- Chicago, Danville & Vincennes R. R. v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court· 1871-09-15· cited 21×
- Weightman v. ClarkSupreme Court· 1881-02-28· cited 17×
- People ex rel. Cairo & St. Louis R. R. v. Trustees of SchoolsIllinois Supreme Court· 1875-06-15· cited 10×
- Hickling v. WilsonIllinois Supreme Court· 1882-06-21· cited 9×
- People ex rel. Cairo & St. Louis Railway Co. v. DupuytIllinois Supreme Court· 1874-01-15· cited 7×
- Quincy, Missouri & Pacific Railroad v. MorrisIllinois Supreme Court· 1877-01-15· cited 3×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.