Harbor Center Land Co. v. City of Richmond

Municipal Corporations—Location of City Hall.—The choice of a site for a city hall by the city council of a municipal corporation is a legislative act.

Ib.—Referendum.—The act of the city council in selecting a site for a city hall may be set aside upon referendum, and where upon such referendum such act ofi the council has been set aside and another site has been selected by the voters of the. city at an election held for the purpose, the decision of the electors at such election was itself legislative and binding.

Id.—Injunction.—The superior court properly refused an injunction to enjoin the council of a municipal corporation from removing the municipal offices from a site, which the electors had rejected at such referendum election, to the other site selected at the same election, and from entering into a contract for the erection of a city hall for such city, since under subdivision 7 of section 526 of the Code of Civil Procedure an injunction cannot be granted in this state to prevent a legislative act by a municipal corporation within the scope of its powers.

Id.—Scope of Municipal Powers.—The selection of a location for a city hall is within the scope of the powers of a municipal corporation.

JLd.—Contract—Donation of Site for City Hall.—The act of the city council in passing a resolution accepting a proposal made by the plaintiff to furnish a block of land for the purpose of the erection of a city hall did not create a binding contract, since the plaintiff must be taken to have made its agreements with the governing body with knowledge of the legislative character of its acts in passing the resolution, and that such act could be reviewed and set aside by the electors.

Id.—Constitutional Law.—Even if in such case the plaintiff contracted obligations and spent money on the faith of the council’s action in passing the resolution accepting the plaintiff’s proposal, before the municipality acted through the referendum, the act of the electors in rejecting the offer of the plaintiff was not violative of the provisions of t'he constitution upon the subject of due process of law or the impairing of the obligation of contracts or of protecting property, or of taking or damaging \private property for public use.

"