Summary

Portrait of Morrison Waite Morrison Waite Lewis v. City of Shreveport — Opinion of the Court

The authority to purchase and hold property of all kinds relates only to such property as is needed for municipal purposes. It is a matter of no importance that the city employed agents to sell the bonds, or that its law officer gave an opinion in favor of their validity, or that they have been recognized in official statements as binding obligations, or that taxes have been levied to pay either principal or interest.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Morrison Waite Morrison Waite Lewis v. City of Shreveport — Opinion of the Court

Every purchaser of such a bond is chargeable in law with notice of the want of power in the municipal authorities to bind the body politic in that way. This principle is elementary.
In the present case it is not pretended that any such power was expressly granted to the city of Shreveport, and we find no provision of the charter from which anything of the kind can be implied.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Morrison Waite Morrison Waite Lewis v. City of Shreveport — Opinion of the Court

There is not a word about the validity of the outstanding bonds, nor of the right of the holders to recover upon them in a suit against the city. The whole effect of the decision is that the city could not keep the land as against the vendor without paying for it. That the court would have held the bonds void, if it had been called on to decide that question, is shown beyond all doubt in the case of Wilson v.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature