Visalia Gas & Electric Light Co. v. Sims
Before: Fleet, Garoutte, Harrison, Haynes, Seakls, Temple
Synopsis
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
The plaintiff having availed itself of the privileges conferred on it by the ordinance of said city of Visalia, it became its legal duty, itself, to maintain and operate its gas and electric works, and to supply the inhabitants of that city with gas and electricity for illuminating purposes, and it was therefore against public policy, and in violation of such duty, to lease these works and privileges. (2 Morawetz on Corporations, secs. 656, 1114, 1116; Thomas v. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 83; York etc. R. R. Co. v. Winans, 17 How. 30; Black v. Delaware etc. Canal Co., 22 N. J. Eq. 180; State v. Hartford etc. R. R. Co., 29 Conn. 538, 547; New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U. S. 659; People v. Chicago Gas Trust Co., 130 Ill. 268; 17 Am. St. Rep. 319; Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co., 130 U. S. 411; Green’s Brice’s Ultra Vires, 2d ed., 120,124,125, 398-400.) Even if the lessee had received any money under the contract which continued in his hands, or any benefit thereunder, an action could not be maintained upon the contract itself, as is attempted in this action, the contract being against public policy, ultra vires, and void, and a suit could only be sustained when brought to recover the money actually received, on an implied promise to pay for the benefit received. (Green’s Brice’s Ultra Vires, 729, 747, 748; San. Francisco Gas Co. v. San Francisco, 9 Cal. 453; Foulke v. San Diego S. P. R. R. Co., 51 Cal. 365; Davis v. Old Colony R. R. Co., 131 Mass. 275; 41 Am. Rep. 221; Railway Co. v. Keokuk etc. Bridge Co., 131 U. S. 389; Central Transp. Co. v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 139 U. S. 54, 55.)
The defendants having received all the benefits under • the contract, and it being an executed contract as to them, they are estopped from relying on such a defense. (Bigelow on Estoppel, 5th ed., 465, 466; Morawetz on Private Corporations, sec. 689; Beach on Private Corporations, secs. 424, 425; Argenti v. City of San Francisco, 16 Cal. 264, 265, 273; Union Water Co. y. Murphy’s Flat Fluming Co., 22 Cal. 630; Main v. Casserly, 67 Cal. 127, 128; Grangers’ Business Assn. v. Clark, 67 Cal. 634; Magee v. Pacific Imp. Co., 98 Cal. 678; 35 Am. St. Rep. 199; Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow, 63 N. Y. 70; 20 Am. Rep. 504; Woodruff v. Erie Ry. Co., 93 N. Y. 610; Rider Life Raft Go. v. Roach, 97 N. Y. 381; Wright v. Hughes, 119 Ind. 324; 12 Am. St. Rep. 412.)
Temple, C. The complaint charges that plaintiff leased to one Lynch, June 24, 1887, certain premises, including the plant of the electric light and gas company, for the term of two years from June 1, 1887. That Lynch agreed to take possession, manage, control, and operate the same, and to pay said company every three months during the term all the receipts of said gas and electric light business, after paying all necessary charges and expenses incurred in carrying on said business; and further agreed that the amount so paid should be sufficient to enable it to pay an annual dividend to its stockholders of five per cent upon its capital stock of twenty-eight thousand dollars, and, in case of deficiency, he would pay to such company every three months such further sums as would enable it to pay such dividend.
That defendants became sureties by signing an agreement indorsed on said agreement, of lease, whereby they agreed if said Lynch failed to pay plaintiff such sums, or any sums which might be due, they would pay the same.
That Lynch took possession of the demised property and retained it until June 1,1889, without paying plaintiff any sums of money as rents or receipts from said business.
That on the 1st of June, 1888, there became due plaintiff on said agreement fourteen hundred dollars, and on the 1st of June, 1889, the sum of fourteen hundred dollars; that no part of said sum has been paid.
The answer contains several defenses: 1. It denies that Lynch held possession for two years, and avers that plaintiff ejected him August 1, 1888; 2. There was no consideration for Lynch’s agreement; 3. No consideration for the agreement to pay sums additional to the receipts from the business; 4. Receipts did not exceed the expenses; there was, therefore, a failure of [329]consideration; 5. The contract of defendants was without consideration; 6. Failure of consideration for sureties’ agreement; 7. Want of consideration again pleaded; 8. Plaintiff was incorporated to furnish gas and electricity to the inhabitants of Visalia for illuminating purposes; the alleged lease was therefore ultra vires; 9. The contract is ultra vires and against public policy.
A defense by amendment sets up the incorporation of plaintiff for specific purposes of furnishing light to the inhabitants, an ordinance procured by it from the city authorizing it to lay pipes in the streets and to erect masts for electric lights, the acceptance of the franchise, the construction of the works, the duty of the corporation to furnish gas and electric lights, in consideration of the privileges, and its undertaking that the works shall not constitute a nuisance, and again charges that the lease to Lynch was against public policy and void.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)