NATIONAL WATER-WORKS 00. fl. SCHOOL-DISTRICT No.7.
528
tucky. It mllY jpferred, from' the express the court, WASHINGTON" that it dieTikeu 'the statute as givell by Judges ilTespective of the contract, and was not satisfied witll ftsprovisions. These dicta may properly be read in the light of the decision in Bank v. Dudley's Lessee, Pet. 492,irl which no opinion was expressed upon the general principles of the betterinentact of Ohio., 'The constitutionIItates whose ality t with relation to t,he' constitutions' oJ the courts'gave the decisions, or the justice of statutesllimilarin substance orin principle to the Connecticut statute,has been, learnedly discussed in the following,bmong other, cases:' Withington v. Corey, and 2 N. H. 115; Whitney v. Richardson, 31 Vt. 300; Armstrong v. Jat'kson; 1 Blackf'. 874; JicCoyv. Grandy, 3 Ohio St; 463jRQllBv. Irving, 14 Ill. 171; Ohild. v. Shower. 18 Iowa, 261. The coostitutio,oality of the Tennessee statute was condemned in Nelson v. Allen, 1'Yerg. 376. Judg&. CATRON :says that the question of constitutionality did no! properly arise in'thatcase, and expresses no opinion upou 'the point. Thedemurrer is, overruled.
NAnONAI, WATER-'\V,OltKS
Co.
tl.ScHOOL-!?ISTR1<n'
No.7.
(CircuitCIrnrt,W.D. Missouri. W.,D. May, 1882.) 1. SCHtloI,' BtJjp>INGS-CIilT
Co'NTRACT. . " ·· Act Mo. 1571; provides that 4'linyclty, town, or village, the plat ofwblch has been 1l1ed,in the recorder's office, of tlle county hl ,whluh the BllIIle Is situate, I11l1y, together wit1;l, the territory which is oflllay be attacbedtheteto' be organized in a single scb'ool-district, and when sO organized' shall be a biidY10l ltic." Held that, when schools formerly under control of a city are organize under this law, the Property, in tbe schqol buildingll dqes not ce",e to be in the city, and hence a wor1l:s company, which' contracts to furnish watelo free ,of charge ,for C4all publio buildinjtsand omces of thecll:iy. "Is bound to supply the espedaUy the contract was befQre scpOOls were !lrganized. '
011
ow
2. MUNICIPAL
The rule that a court, in constrUing a doubtful provision of a eontl'llQ\, wtnfol· low tl:llllnwrprctation it by th\l paTties, 110es not apply toCOIltraet. It. lIlunicipal corp<irationill affectillg the pUblic Interest. '
"
..
At'ta.w. Action by the National WiJ.ter-WorkeCompany against Schpol-District No.7 of Kansas City, to recover cOfnpensation for water used in the school buildings.' On motion to set aside a nonsuit. :MOo tion denied. ', .
!Thecohtroversy in this case between' the water-works tbe school board of Kansas City has its origin in the strqctionof. ordinanceurider which the 'water-works of the city wete requiring the. ascertainifient of the object and policy b\l:ilt j ' of "tpat' portion of' the school laws Nissouri under which: public sqhoQ'1l in ,cities, towns,' and "illages or'gapized. ,'It appears thlltirt 1873' the City of Kansas entered into a col:itract'with the National Water-'
or
FEDERAL REPORTER "vol. ,.J ,
48.
of
Company of New York for the construction of its present waterthe obligation and liapilities of tbe parties! by an ordinaml,e,Jhe portion of which pertaihing to this controversy' reads as followl$> . '. also use and take, and the company is to supply, from the water-works as now constructed and herf'after extended, water for use in all 1;l\lildlngs and offices of the city, and for any fountains the city may erect on the public g.rounds, snd for any 'drinking places the city may choose t? erecti:n any portion of the city, and for basins for watering stock from waetewiUerout of such fountains. ... ... ... Said company shall not have auypa,. .or compensation for water theci.ty may so use or take, other than to be paid as by this ordinance is provided." ,. The ;qUestion is, do the public scbool buildings come within the meaning of thiS" '<:>rdinan6e, and lire they publicbuildings of the city of KanSll.8, and alr such to be supplied with by the company free;o:/1lcharge? The plaintiff claims they are not pUblic buildings, tbe ordinsI)ce,and they. have not been so regarded j and hence the school board has made a verbal contract with tbe water-works company by which they agree to pay for the water used by the public schools. In 1873, the time when the water-works ordinance was passed, no school board of any kind existed, and the city, under its,.corporate authority, had full and.90mplet? col1trol. over its schools, ils "iaybe seen'from'the'provisionsof its charte'r';'wllich are as follows: "The mayor counCihrien shall haVEl' p6we'r to "en inflie-sim pIe. lease, disppse of, all lots of ground, and all money and property, to w1l1ch the inhabitants may be entitled for the benefit of schools, and may take raU'necessary steps. to maintain suits to recoVel' the,same, or effect claimants, and to appropriate such money or Ijlanner as they may llQnsider advantageous to the support
the water-works, nearly school buildings of Kansas City bad been erected, and were occupied and llsed for school purposes. The present defendant corporat,i"nhad 'no existence, and, the city had entire control over its sch06ls;"iii9hiding the right of property, Under such a state of facts, it would seem that scarcely a doubtcollld exist as to the school-houses property, and within theepirit and meaning pf the provisions 9f ()rdinance. we have the admitted verbal agreement of or .some former. sqhool with the water-works company to pay for the water used at the public scbools. Regarding this verbal that the construction given to Ii. doubtful agreement, it may be nrovi1ion,jhY,. to ll.ffecting their interest only, Often, m.th1inr upon parties tOll. Judgmentart\,m a condItIon tohes,tknow what QIlntendedby moreover, likely to, gu#Wtneir interof .such is broken when ,ve come to apply it est.' to municipal corporations. They must .of necessity have their affairs cO,tlducte.d according to law, who often have, a
At't1l'a':{iine of contracUng for the bi,Iilding of
NATIONAL WATER-WORtt:S CO. 'II. SCROOL-DISTRICT No.7.
525
general public interest in.-the matters intrusted to them, are frequently changed, and not always the best calculated to construe contracts made by their predecessors. This is illustrated to some extent in the case before the court, in which school directors.of one board contracted to pay, and the same or another set of directots aHerwards refused payment. A court asked to construe the provisions of a contract under such or similar circumstances may well hold itse\\ free to do so without being influencAd by the views entertained or even acted on by the corporators, especially in a case involving public interests, as the present one does. Passing from the question of construction to the .consideration of the nature of the two corporations, the present school board and Kansaj5 City proper, it is contended for the company that they are distinct bodies. each having its own property and exercising control over it,and that, therefore, with no propriety. can ."the public. school buildings, the property of the school hoard, be considered the property of Kansas City within the meaning ordinance. We have: already seen that at the time of thei,passage of the city ordinance contracting for the building of the waterl-w'orks the city of Kansas owned and had full control ants'public schools and property.pertaining thereto, and, if any such control and ownership passed from it, it·lllust·have been .when' the present, board of school dil!ectors was organized, whtch was long after the passage of the. ordinance. '1'he.presel1tschool ization of Kansas Oit,was effected' under the act of 1877 , according to the laws of Missouri on the f!ubject ofschools and that part of it regarding schools in' cities, towns, and villages-. How did: the organization, to under this act, affect the publio 6choolsof Kansas City, and the the property in them, and are the buildings in which they are kept nO longer public buildings of the city?, The- law in reference to. ,the orgnnization of- schools in cities, towns, and villages, to which refer.encehl1$ beentnade, provides:"that any city tawn,or village, the plat of which has beenprev.iously filed in the recorder's office of the county in which the same is situate, ,may,,,together, with the territory which is or may beattacbed thereto; be organized in a single Bcbool-district, '" '" '" and when so organized shall be a body politic, and known as school trictNo. 'of county." Althougb .the! school-distriot is designated a county district, yet that no change in the ownership oqhe property of the schools was thereby intended' is indicated by the quirement that a plat of the city,town, or village shall have beenrEto corded, thus identifying the territorial extent of the;quasi corporation, alid making it identical with the city, town, or village which has ized schools' under its provisions. It· still more clearly a.ppea,fs .·hat property rights were not· affected thereby, for neither the act .itself un.., dertakes to transfer the property, Dor. is there power given therein for the 1iransferring of any title the cities, towDs,or villages had to property pertaining to their schools. If the: intention of the,law was to have the schools in cities, towns,and villages disconnected from other municipal affairsmerelY,there'existed no necessity for authority to transfer prop-; erty I and the absence of such a provision ,is accounted for. We' take it
·
FEDERAiL<RBPORTER ,vol.
that' tbe.legislature 'Of, Missouri,: oy, authorizing district school, organiza'tions m:JOities, towJas,and, villagesjilntendednothingmorethan the sep'controlrof' the! ,pu'blicsohools'from geaeral muniCipal ,affail'$( idI'his view is also ,supported by theprovisiona oLthe law inschool direc'torsof cities, towns,; .and villages to their quwlifiEld ,voters,"thus ,completely ,identifying thee school-districts ,with: whidh theY'are ingrafted. Regardingthe dua;lity,pf,the corporatiolll in this GlBSe; it may be,ftir.ther suggested that mUbicipaVool'poratiohS',are theoieatures of the legislative will, which ·uses'thmn'foriJts,ownpurposesandends. The distribution of munieil1al aftair8>1tillong 8esignated, bodiElS is of frequentoccnrrence, and these :qua8i«Jrporationsj as t1a:ey are called, while acting indepelldently within !their, 'limits,: ars yet, ; to the, main corpolation. It has authorized the estal)liSlbmentofschoolB iIi citiesl t towns, and villllgeli'.Bnd intrusted the and control Ofthenn and theil'" property to separate organizatioml'1forrConvenienceand as B matter of, polic)', and has made them corp01'atiofts, in this calle called:lmistrict No.7. ", That such a quam oorporl1'tlori was to remain; and continue to i be, a. part of the main corporationl i cannot doubt. ,: , mll!rJbdurther'argued insnpport of the views entertained that the grante oMandbycongress Jar school purposes of the sixteenth section in eaclili'oongressional township'iiSito the inhabitantB0f -thetownsbip for theus-e tif·8chools. Thergrantehere referred to are at the basis of the organiziJtinn'of our SCDQo1 special provisions of law regarding'oicies; towns, and villa gAS found/in the Missouri statutes have their:ongill: i11 gmntsmadeby ;theactofcongress of the: 13th of June, 'iVnderthe succession ofd\vnership of the country by Spain and Francepcertain',granfs orlanda and., lots had been, made· to towns and inhabittwts,'whiehgt;ants, were recognb:ed by the nationairg0.vemll1t>nt afterdhecession oLthe 1ietritbry., In order to settle, the 'title: toP.lroperty'grantEid .,before i the:,change,congrt:l!spassed the aettlf 1812;' a}!ready ,to, lthereby;confirming, the grants to the innabitllht1-lin:lb&'towns'andvilJages named; in the such lands as wereriotr,rightfuJny .reserved to the inhabitants for the suppol't St:);Louis, one of the, villages named .in the act, largely prbfited. by the gnaHt of vacant lots,,'andearlyorganized schools underlegislQ:tiondo that! rend. Other v,iUages did and, thus legislationforthjlir:benefit was ingraftedi upon the school laws of Mis-. sonri; ami litnder/modification becalTIe, and now are, the lllwsregarding eities{,to\\lq!f\ ,Kansas City,:aswe have ,seen, organized its It hndno speciaL grants of,-}Ilod,but constitutedi.''Partlof 'Qus'or 1Jloreeongra'lBional thus obtained tl1e'benllfitJOf:tl,ec,siit entil ,enabling act ofJ820, author.. Wing MiBsourbtol''Wcoil!le'one of: the states: of the Union, granted to the em:bry 0 6tateJ,i,among othe1'8\ ,the Jollowwg. land .. Section n umber t in evexy, towushi Po for the use of: the inhabitants of, such,township '£Of the use of/scOOob.II ''Ihe grant is tot4ednbabitantsof the. townships.,
we
i
,H
;;IN REDAYlilliPOlt'l'· ..'",; ·· '. '. ;
527
in tbe co-Untt1Jl, without special derivedfroIh namedthe citizens of Kansas 'City ,untittB-day 'they school buildings andsch:ools., To.the suggestion tbat;> the: property belongs to School-District No.7, or the board of,schobl directors, the citizens of Kansas CitY'i\fOu1d readily, ,'truthf\llly reply, "We are Sc9pol-DistrictNo. 'is;ou.. depTlveus ofour"propertyi, Ror,affeet, l.i:$ argument of there is no, answer; norisjt invalidated by the JacHha.t a bma,qjoining, for its own; connected itselL,with,thesehoolpiganization of the city, uBcteHhelaw ',"',,; . The conclusions rel!-ched are that the verbal agreements made by the directors'hl'behalf of S'Clftool-DistnctNo. 7 with. the (!6tnpany, to pay fOf' public',schools,w8:s without conaiderati?n, and v?idj that the school">public school-houses of Kafibuildings bf:the citY! JWithin tbe l meaning ofthe ;waterJwotKs orditulnce; and 'thall 'the is bound ito 'fijrn'iah Watet}fm their Use, free :plOVided in1be 'ordinanoo/'r!Mofion t08ehside iibnsui:t':denied.' !j 21;'
,be they in a city,
'f
,
.j
! ' '
'T:::
In",.." , ,
1
,', '
'Supervisor of, Elections. D. -j '. ' ,".... '
'<\,
'."
York. .October 11, 1880.) " , ,', '! '.. ",'}
" : , '.'
Co
':.
'
whielt that of the dlitiai, iIilp&eed: upon 1;hem long · an<,l,capable ,n ',t,lle,' ',ill,',l1in,gby a, c,il4}f llUP"a,rvis,o,I,' ' ipnstJ1 at, , atantially and Ipaterially the, 1108 is, SU,'bor",din,,aoos . othel,"8 'previousl and' approve4 ,'ex )'i);rle by the d18trlct attlll;PllY tor the United S'tl&tes 'an 'tll.e 'judge of ,the'Uii'ited '4!ittMe8'distrlct;court. istte41li gToundfl!l\'l hil removat from oftiOO·. :i!uch approval.1a '8111lJlD1ent Ilo repel any; imPUtation of ,' ,;, . , Q, ··
.','liheU .,
",ll:J,f,
-, M,1800, N:OUOTO,
'it
:a.'SAMB.
', ',',
,,"
'.
,.
: ,""
<",
Elta:tell:, CII,"CUmstanoos, 'put'to 'lin' applicant for ,Hl'Ild,tbat this should the ol/otb and
or e1e.9,t!on,i In,stru"P,ted.his subordinates tfult,' "you wU1 , j. · · require"'tnestatutoryoathtobe 'litld
""i"
'ii..
':
will make ofbtm "certain inqqirie·· to,l'II4au,est the state the New York ":l;'8\l),Yl"Oper o n e . . ' :" " ," "
. ' 'I'htf'tollbwtng questionlfmay bellropOsed 'b1'a fedel'81supel'visor ofeleOtionto stlftie lIi'llpeetors,of' eleotion: ll$i propei' tQI bel put to .applicailts for regiskaljon,'sinoe tbe,Y,'OOlld, to, eEci,t, proo, the, aWUo!"n,t'l! tpr,a1izatl,'on,"aI!, rA<,p,ntemplat.edr,' bY,; ,Q. , (1) BIB (2) he nail served in the Ql,"mY'"and been. honiira'blydlscharged'; . (3) whetber Ms' parents, 'of them. In'l1)hiINotintry\' and"if '80,whether they natumlized; and· e., ,whet,heJ: ',they, 01," eitber'of ,them, were lJayu11llfzed, qpplicaD;t Qf,age..; be v,r,oop./:"Bfi J;li/lfirst papers before recelY)pg J;!18certl.ll..cate"alll1t if Jt Was two \Jeforej (5) hllltppi3lfrea in court, or wbetl;lar hIS oel'tjliiliite was senti to 1iim, or 'else· .. be tOOk 1hvitne811' Wltb :Mill' iW ben he 'r'cui¥ed Jii8 dertiflmte, , ;".';, J'r,
011' :N"ATURALIZAIrION'"
are