Skip to main content
· 2/24/1902

Waite v. Santa Cruz

Citations

  • 184 U.S. 302
  • 22 S. Ct. 327
  • 46 L. Ed. 552
  • 1902 U.S. LEXIS 2306

Syllabus

<p>On the facts, as stated in the opinion of the court, the city of Santa Cruz is estopped to dispute the truth of the recitals in the bonds in suit in this case, which stated that they were issued in pursuance of the act of California of 1893, as well as in conformity With the constitution of California, authorizing it to incur indebtedness or liability with the assent of, two thirds of the qualified voters at an election held for that purpose, and that all acts, conditions and things required to be done precedent to issuing the bonds had been properly done and performed in due and lawful form as required' by law.</p> <p>The Circuit Court having correctly found that the parties who placed said bonds in the plaintiff’s hands were bona fide purchasers, without notice of anything affecting the truth of the recitals in them, the city cannot escape liability by reason of the fact, disclosed by its ordinances, that the eighty-nine first mortgage bonds of the Water Company assumed by the city, were included in its refunding scheme. •</p> <p>As to the. question whether the person who signed said bonds was or was not, at the time of the signature, the rightful mayor of Santa Cruz, this court holds — (1) that the acts'of a defacto officer are valid as to the public and third persons, although it is sometimes difficult to determine whether the evidence is such as to warrant a finding that a particular act or acts, the legality of which may be in issue, were those of a defacto officer: (2) That a de facto officer maybe defined as one whose title is not good in law, but who is, in fact, in the unobstructed possession of an office, and discharging its duties in full view of the public, in such manner and under such circumstances as not to present the appearance of being an intruder or usurper: (3) That in such a case third persons, having occasion to deal with him in his capacity as such officer, are not required to investigate his title, but may safely deal with him upon the as

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • question of de facto officer status is a mixed question of law and fact
  • a de facto officer has “title” that “is not good in law, but who is in fact in the unobstructed possession of an office and discharging its duties in full view of the public, in such manner and under such circumstances as not to present the appearance of being an intruder or usurper”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Harlan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.