Free Inhabitant

OVERVIEW: The attorney-general brought suit against the chief engineer for an alleged usurpation of the office after the chief engineer refused to vacate his post. The lower court found in favor of the attorney-general. On appeal, the chief engineer contended that the act of the legislature to establish a board of water commissioners was unconstitutional and void. The central question in the case was one of legislative power. The court affirmed the judgment below. It found that the Water Department was a municipal corporation. The corporation was merely an agency instituted by the state for the purpose of carrying out in detail the objects of the government. It was essentially a revocable agency, with no vested powers or franchises. The corporation was also subject to the control of the legislature. While it existed in subjection to the will of the state, it enjoyed the rights and was subject to the liabilities of any other corporation, public or private. The court noted that whether the act should have been passed was a question to have been determined solely by the legislature itself. The court ruled that it was not at liberty to declare the act itself unconstitutional.

COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF DELAWARE

12 Del. 44; 30 A. 728; 1884 Del. LEXIS 8; 7 Houst. 44

July 22, 1884

Click HERE to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System.

Proof that “City” is a business, and you are a party to that business by residency, and you are considered a resident because you use the name of that same “City” in you property deeds, even though you are not actually part of that city territorially, this they do not want you to Know. 

[W]e are getting people off the property tax role with various challenges.  hadcfirm@lawyer.com

CASE SUMMARY:

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff residents brought an action in the court against defendant city officials, in a proceeding upon a bill of equity (Pennsylvania) to enjoin the city officials from purchasing stock for the city and paying for it through bonds and public taxes.

OVERVIEW: The city officials were about to contract for stock in a railroad company and intended to make payment through the issue of bonds and taxes. They passed an act to authorize their action and raise the money for the purchase. The residents, who were owners of real and personal estates within the city, argued that the city officials did not have the authority for the planned unconstitutional actions. The residents filed a bill of equity, seeking to restrain the city officials from subscribing or pledging the faith of the city for the stock and arguing that the subscriptions would add heavily to the debt of the city, impair the public credit, and greatly augment the taxes. The court denied the injunction, holding that, although the power to tax could not be delegated, the legislature could provide agencies through whom to exercise its power of taxation and that was not a delegation or transfer of power. The legislature divided the states into counties, townships, school districts, and cities, and appointed tax officers with authority to assess, collect, and apply taxes, so the acts were constitutional.

OUTCOME: The court denied the injunction requested by the residents in an action against the city officials to stop them from purchasing stock and paying for the purchase through public taxes.

Sharpless and Others v. The Mayor, &c., of Philadelphia. SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA,  21 Pa. 147; 1853 Pa. LEXIS 97

Click HERE to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System.