Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 5.djvu/183

167 DECISION UPON MUNICIPAL BONDS. 1 67 The decision in Police Jury v, Britton was that a power to issue negotiable securities ought not to be implied from a mere author- ity to make improvements. This is sound doctrine ; and it was followed in Claiborne County v. Brooks, where it was held that a statute of Tennessee conferring upon counties the power to erect a court-house, jail, and other necessary county buildings, did not authorize the issue of negotiable bonds in payment for the work. 1 The court in these decisions, however, was not dealing with the question of the meaning of the power to borrow money ; for it ex- pressly denied the existence of such a power. One needs but turn to the report of Police Jury v. Britton to perceive that the reason- ing of the learned and acute judge who delivered the opinion, is based upon the proposition that there was no power in the police jury to borrow money. Mr. Justice Bradley expressly says : "It has been held that the power to borrow money implies the power to issue the ordinary securities for its repayment, whether in the form of notes, or bonds payable in future." 2 The same eminent justice, in Claiborne Co. v. Brooks, says of Lynde v. County of Winnebago : 3 — "The county had express authority to borrow money for the erection of public buildings, to be determined by the people of the county at any regular election, or special election called for the purpose. The ques- tion in the case was, not as to the existence of the power, but as to the effect of the evidence en the question whether the conditions for its exer- cise had been complied with. The court held that the evidence was sufficient, and sustained the bonds. It was not pretended that the county would have had power to issue them if such power had not been conferred by the legislature, either expressly or by necessary implication, from the express power to borrow money." 4 Mr. Justice Lamar, after citing several decisions and giving ex- tracts from the opinions of the court, sums up by saying: "The logical result of the doctrines announced in the above-cited cases, in our opinion, clearly shows that the bonds sued on in this case are invalid." But an examination of the authorities thus relied upon shows that the court in each instance was passing upon the power to borrow money, and it found that such power did not 1 in U. S. 400. 2 IS wall. 572. 8 16 Wall. 6. ' * in U. S. 409.