Madry v. Town of Scotland Neck

BaeNHIll, J.

The plaintiff alleges that tbe defendant is a municipal corporation of tbe State of North Carolina; that its chief of police was murdered 16 February, 1936; that its duly appointed, elected and qualified officers offered a reward of $500.00 to tbe person who would furnish information leading to tbe arrest and conviction of tbe party or parties guilty of tbe murder; that tbe plaintiff thereafter furnished information to an officer of Halifax County which led to tbe arrest of two men, one of whom was duly convicted of tbe crime; that tbe plaintiff has duly filed bis claim for said reward with the. defendant, but that it has neglected and refused to pay same.

Tbe complaint and the demurrer thereto present but one question for determination: May a North Carolina municipality, without express legislative authority, bind itself to pay a reward for information leading to tbe arrest and conviction of a party who commits a felony within tbe corporate limits of the town?

A municipality is a creature of tbe Legislature and it can only exercise (1) tbe powers granted in express terms; (2) those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to tbe powers expressly granted; and (3) those essential to tbe accomplishment of tbe declared objects of tbe corporation — not simply convenient, but only those which are indispensable, to tbe accomplishment of tbe declared objects of tbe corporation.

Asheville v. Herbert, 190 N. C., 732 , 130 S. E., 861 ;

S. v. Gulledge, 208 N. C., 204 , 179 S. E., 883 . In exercising such powers tbe municipal corporation’s authority to bind itself by contract is limited and it cannot contract any debt, except for necessary expenses, unless by vote of tbe majority of tbe qualified voters therein. N. C. Const., Art. VII, sec. 7.

The Legislature has conferred authority upon tbe Governor of tbe State to offer rewards under tbe limitations set out in tbe statute, O. S., 4554. .There is no such express.legislative grant of power to towns and cities. Tbe duty to apprehend and prosecute felons is imposed upon county and State officers. No such duty is required of a town, and a *463 careful examination of the powers conferred upon towns and cities by the statutes of this State leaves us with the conviction that it cannot be said that the power to offer rewards for the apprehension or conviction of felons can necessarily or fairly be implied from, or is incident to, the powers expressly granted. Nor is such power essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects of the corporation.

This is in accord with the general trend of the decisions in other states, the general rule being stated in 23 R. C. L., 1124, as follows: “The authorities very generally agree, however, that municipalities have no power to offer rewards for the apprehension of offenders against the criminal laws of the State, unless a statute or charter provision confers such power, as is sometimes done, but the ordinary general welfare clause of a municipal charter does not have this effect.”

“The offer of a reward for the apprehension and conviction of an offender against the criminal law of the State is the exercise of a State power, and is foreign to the objects and purposes of a municipal corporation. It is not an ordinary corporate power, nor incident to it.”

Winchester v. Redmond, 93 Va., 711 . Where a municipal corporation offers a reward for a purpose which does not come within the scope of its powers, and the reward is claimed by a person who has fulfilled the conditions of the offer, the contract thereby formed is ultra vires and affords no right of action against the corporation. 3 Ann. Cas., 157, Note.

“If a contract is ultra vires it is wholly void and (1) no recovery can be had against the municipality; (2) there can be no ratification except by the Legislature; (3) the municipality cannot be estopped to deny the validity of the contract. 3 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, 2nd Ed., page 817.”

Jenkins v. Henderson, ante, 244. The fact that the other party to the contract has fully performed his part of the contract, or has expended money on the faith thereof, will not preclude the city from pleading ultra vires. Dawson v. Dawson Waterworks, 106 Ga., 696 , 32 S. E., 907 ;

Mealy v. Hagerstown, 92 Md., 741 , 48 Atl., 746 ;

Jenkins v. Henderson, supra.

As it appears upon the face of the complaint that the plaintiff is seek-, ing to enforce a contract which is ultra vires and void the demurrer interposed by the defendant should have been sustained.

The judgment below is Reversed.