Clouse v. City of San Diego

Municipal Corporations—Charter of San Diego—Sale of Bonds for Roads and Boulevards—Act of 1901—Void Ordinance—Injunction by Taxpayers.—The city of San Diego, after voting for bonds under the act of February 25, 1901, for the building, construction, and acquisition of designated roads and boulevards, and selling the same, had no power under its charter to pass an ordinance authorizing the board of public works to expend such moneys in employing teams and men for the construction thereof, without previous advertisement and the letting of contracts therefor to the lowest bidder, as required by the provisions of said act of 1901; and taxpayers of the city of San Diego may properly maintain an action to enjoin such unauthorized action, as inconsistent with the terms of that act.

Id.—Silence of Charter as to Disposition of Revenues for City Improvements—Subjection to ■ General Laws.—Although the charter of San Diego authorizes it in general terms to incur bonded indebtedness, under the terms of the general law applicable thereto, yet it being silent, upon the subject of its power to devote its ordinary revenues to street improvements, and leaving that matter to the general law, it cannot claim to be exempt from general laws relating to the expenditure of bonded indebtedness incurred under the General Bonding Act of 1901.

Id.—City when Subject to General Laws as to Municipal Affairs.— A city cannot claim to be exempt from general laws relating to municipal affairs, if there is no provision relating to such affairs in the charter under which it is acting, whether such charter is one framed by itself, or was given to it by the legislature.

Id.—Expenditure of Bond Money Limited to Terms of Act.—There being no mode provided in the charter of San Diego for the expenditure of the bonded indebtedness authorized and voted for by the city under the Bonding Act of February 25, 1901, that act must be followed, and the work must be done according to contract, as therein commanded.

Id.—Eights of Citizens and Taxpayers to Maintain Action.—It is not essential to the rights of citizens and taxpayers to maintain an action to enjoin an illegal expenditure of public funds, that they must show a special injury peculiar to themselves. It is sufficient that the mode contemplated might be expensive and wasteful, and that contractors capable of giving the best service might be precluded from participating in the effort to secure contracts to do the work. This would give the plaintiffs sufficient standing to maintain the action.