« AnteriorContinuar »
SOUTHERN LAW REVIEW
CHART OF THE SOUTHERN
LAW AND COLLECTION UNION.
FRANK T. REID,
NEILL S. BROWN, JR.
PRINTED BY ROBERTS & PURVIS.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by
REID & BROWN,
In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
LIBRARY OF THE
LELAKO STRAFSKC, JR., UNIVERSITY
CONTENTS OF No. I.
LIABILITY OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ON INSTRUMENTS
powers of municipal corporations, and of their officers, have been the subjects of frequent discussion in the courts of the United States during the last few years. Until recently no distinction seems to have been made between such corporations and private corporations created for private gain. Reasoning from analogy the courts were inclined to hold that the same principles applied to both public and private corporations; that the powers conceded to the latter class belonged equally to the other as corpoporations; and that where the officers of private corporations could bind their corporations by their acts without express authority, or even against express authority, a like power must belong to the officers of public corporations. Gradually the courts have seen cause to doubt the correctness of the analogy, and have been widening the line of distinction between the two. It will be the object of this paper to pass in review the recent decisions, and to ascertain, if we can, whether any and what principles have been definitely settled by them upon the following points :1. Has a municipal corporation the power, without express
, legislative authority, to borrow money for any of the purposes of its incorporation ?
2. Has it the power, without express legislative authority, to issue its paper clothed with all the attributes of negotiability ?
3. Conceding the affirmative of these two queries, can the executive officers of a municipal corporation borrow money, or issve ne