109 Wis. 589 | Wis. | 1901
It is considered that this case is ruled against appellant by Paul v. Kenosha, 22 Wis. 266, Smith v. Barron Co. 44 Wis. 686, Brodhead v. Milwaukee, 19 Wis. 624, and Lafebre v. Board of Education, 81 Wis. 660, — particularly by the first and last of such cases. The principle of those cases is that municipalities are bound by moral obligations, as well as individuals, and that where, in case of the latter, such an obligation will give rise to a legal liability, it may have the same effect as to a municipality; that if a municipality obtains money of a person by an illegal sale of property to him, or an illegal contract of some kind, not expressly prohibited by law nor tainted by moral turpitude so that court on grounds of public policy will not recognize it, or the relations growing out of it, to grant relief, and such person acts in good faith in parting with his money, believing the same to be for the benefit of the municipality, and the latter uses the money for its legal and legitimate purposes, to that extent the law will imply a promise to return the same, upon which ah action for money had and received
Counsel for appellant contend that this case can be distinguished from Paul v. Kenosha, which is to some extent true as to the facts, though in no essential particular, it is believed. But certainly there is no difference between the two in principle. In this case the money was obtained by the officers of appellant, assuming to act in its behalf and having the appearance of authority, to be used for lawful town purposes, and it was so used. In the Paul Case the money was obtained of the individual in the same way, as a consideration for the sale of bonds previously made for another purpose, issued therefor, and thereafter acquired by the municipality. The reissue of the bonds was illegal, though, as supposed, for a legitimate purpose; and the money was used .for such purpose, though the bonds were as worthless as so much waste paper. No reason is perceived why the case would have been different if, instead of making use of the canceled bonds to obtain the money, the city, without authority, had made a new bond for the purpose, or obtained the money without going through the form of issuing a bond at all. The implied promise upon which the recovery was sustained arose, not from the loan of money to the
The authorities that support a municipal liability under ■circumstances above indicated are too numerous to warrant an attempt to cite all of them. Salt Lake City v. Hollister, 118 U. S. 256; Pimental v. San Francisco, 21 Cal. 351, 362; Zouisicma v. Wood, 102 U. S. 294; Read v. Plattsmouth, 107 U. S. 568; Gause v. Clarksville, 5 Dillon, 165, 180; Allen v. La Fayette, 89 Ala. 641; Scofield v. Council Bluffs, 68 Iowa, 695.
Much time might be spent in reviewing the foregoing and other cases, but it is thought that nothing after all could be added to what has already been said in previous decisions of this court to which we have referred, so we forego further ■discussion.
It is firmly established here that the doctrine of ultra vires cannot be invoked by a corporation, in the absence of some prohibitory law, to protect itself from liability to refund money which it has received and had the legitimate benefit of. That is most generally invoked in cases where private corporations are involved, but it applies just the same to public corporations, w'here the individual dealing with the corporation acts in good faith,— that is, parts with his money or property to the corporation believing that it has & lawful right to acquire it.
Some complaint is made that, admitting the principle contended for by respondent’s counsel, the complaint is insufficient because it does not show, by proper allegations of facts, that the money received by appellant was used for lawful town purposes; that the general allegation to that
We should say before closing this subject that in Paul v. Kenosha, 22 Wis. 266, the allegation as to the use of the money was substantially the same as in the case before us, and it does not appear to have occurred to court or counsel then that the complaint was insufficient. This is the language : “ The money was solicited and received by the defendant for the legitimate municipal purposes of the defendant, and not for any other or different purpose. It was placed in the city treasury with the other money and funds of such city, kept and used for municipal purposes, and wholly used by the defendant for its legitimate municipal purposes.”
What has been said requires the order appealed from to be affirmed.
By the Court.— So ordered.