Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/326

 § 333.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. to meet its engagements, the power of taxation thus given can- not be withdrawn until the contract is satisfied. The state and the corporation are equally bound to respect the claims of the creditors of the latter ; and the power given becomes a trust which the donor cannot annul and the donee is bound to exe- cute. " By the obligation of a contract is meant the means which, at the time of its creation, the law affords for its en- forcement. The usual mode by which municipal bodies obtain funds to meet their pecuniary engagements is taxation. Ac- cordingly, when a contract is made upon the faith that taxes will be levied, legislation repealing or modifying the taxing power of the corporation, so as to deprive the holder of the con- tract of all adequate and efficacious remedy, is within the con- stitutional inhibition." 1 Accordingly, a mandamus will issue to a municipal corporation commanding it to levy taxes to the amount requisite to meet its valid engagements. 2 It is well established that after judgment at law for a sum of money against a municipal corporation and the return of execution unsatisfied, mandamus, not a bill in equity, is the proper mode to compel the levy of a tax which the corporation is bound to levy to pay the judgment. 4 And when judgment has been 1 Nelson v. St. Martin's Parish, 111 U. S. 716, 721; opinion per Field, J., Ace. Scotland County Court v. Hill, 140 U.S. 41. And see Seibert v. Lewis, 122 U. S. 284, and cases in next note. 2 Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy, 4 Wall. 535; United States v. New Orleans, 98 U. S. 381; Brodie v. McCabe, 33 Ark. 690; Columbia County v. King, 13 Fla. 451. As long as a city exists, laws are void which withdraw or restrict her tax- ing power so as to impair the obliga- tion of her contracts made upon a pledge expressly or impliedly given that it shall be exercised for their fulfillment. Mandamus will lie, not- withstanding such laws. Wolff v. New Orleans, 103 U. S. 358, approv- ing Von Hoffman v. Quincy. Com- pare Louisiana v. Mayor of New Or- leans, 109 U. S. 285; Rahway v. 306 Munday, 44 N. J. L. 395. Where the relator has a judgment, on rail- way aid bonds, against a township, aud is otherwise entitled to a writ of mandamus, a mandamus to compel the levy of a tax lies against all the officers whose co-operation in tax levies is by law required, whether they are town or county officers. Labette County Commissioners v. Moulton, 112 U. S. 217. But judg- ment on the bonds must first have been had. Davenport v. County of Dodge, 105 U. S. 237; County of Greene v. Daniel, 102 U. S. 187. Re- garding mandamus as a remedy of the holder of municipal bonds, see Dillon on Mud. Corps., 3d ed. §§ 849 et seq. 3 Thompson v. Allen County, 115 U. S. 550. 4 Walkley v. City of Muscatine, 6 Wall. 481. ,