|
1829.] Rights of Municipal Corporations. 213
fording at the same time means of relief and indemnification,
the owner of the property destroyed or injured would un-
doubtedly have his action at common law against those who
should cause the injury, for his damages. For although it
might be lawful to do what the legislature might authorize, yet
to enforce the principles of the constitution for the security of
private property it might be necessary to consider such a le-
gislative act as inoperative so far as it trenched on the rights of
individuals. And this judgment is at once an answer to all
the English authorities which seem to contradict the notion of
responsibility, an answer growing out of our peculiar original
institutions. But there is one circumstance in which I think
none of the English cases resembles this case. They are suits
against trustees for the public, or their servants acting for the
benefit of the people at large, and the trusts were undertaken
gratuitously, in the execution of which they had no other in-
terest than that which every subject of the nation had ; and in
the very strongest case upon this subject, Suttoo v. Clark, the
judge (Chief J. Gibbs) says the case differs in this important
particular from a nuisance committed by an individual, for that
is done for his own benefit and emolument. If this be the point
of distinction and the true criterion, it settles this question for
the plaintiffs. For who are the defendants ? They are trustees
for the public; but what public ? Themselves. They are
trustees of public interests for their own benefit, and ought to
answer as an individual to the person at whose expense they
are benefited. A contrary doctrine would lead to this result,
that every chartered company for private emolument might
under color of law inflict the most serious injuries without
the possibility of being compelled to make reparation, if in-
deed we could suppose the legislature could authorize them
to commit such invasions. There is no case which goes to
this extent unless it be some observations in 2 Johnson, not
called for by the case, and the remarks of Lord Kenyon in the
glass plate case. Such doctrines are in my judgment utterly
untenable, and are in violation of first principles.
Such being the views governing this case, I might here stop,
and content myself by refusing the defendants' prayer, but I
bog leave to look at the consequences of these doctrines as
they affect the city. As regards individuals, they certainly
£1 vc security to their property; as regards the city, they restrain
it of no right. If this corporation had before the right to divert
|
