220 U.S.

345
VERISIMO VASQUEZ VILAS, Plf. in Err. and Appt., v.
I!" O# MA$ILA. $%. 53. ESPERA$ZA O!ERO !RI&AS 't al., Plf(. in Err.
and Appt(., v. I!" O# MA$ILA.$%. 54.
RIAR)O A&UA)O, Appt., v. I!" O# MA$ILA.$%. 20*.$%(. 53, 54, and
20*.
Ar+,'d #'-r,ar. 24 and 2*, /0//.
)'1id'd April 3, /0//.
2220 U.S. 345, 3434 M'((r(. #r'd'ri1 R. %,d'rt, 5%6ard !7a.'r
8in+(-,r., Pa,l #,ll'r, and 5arr. 9'(t%n Van ).:' ;%r plaintif( in 'rr%r
and app'llant(.
2220 U.S. 345, 3404 M'((r(. Pa,l 7arlt%n and I(aa1 Ada<( ;%r app'll''.
2220 U.S. 345, 35/4
Mr. Justice Lurton delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintifs in error, who were plaintifs below, are creditors of the city of Manila as
it existed before the cession of the Philippine Islands to the nited !tates by the
treaty of Paris, "ece#ber $%, $&'& ()% !tat. at L. $*+,-.
pon the theory that the city, under its present charter fro# the .overn#ent of the
Philippine Islands, is the sa#e /uristic person and liable upon the obli.ations of the
old city, these actions were brou.ht a.ainst it.
The supre#e court of the Philippine Islands denied relief, holdin. that the present
#unicipality is a totally diferent corporate entity, and in no way liable for the debts
of the !panish #unicipality (00% .!. ),+, )+0-
The funda#ental 1uestion is whether, notwithstandin. the cession of the Philippine
Islands to the nited !tates, followed by a reincorporation of the city, the present
#unicipality is liable for the obli.ations of the city incurred prior to the cession to
the nited !tates.
2e shall con3ne ourselves to the 1uestion whether the plaintifs in error are entitled
to /ud.#ents a.ainst the city upon their several clai#s.
2hether there is a re#edy ade1uate to the collection when reduced to /ud.#ent is
not presented by the record. 4ut whether there is or is not a re#edy afords no
reason why the plaintifs in error #ay not reduce their clai#s to /ud.#ent. Mt.
Pleasant v. 4ec5with, $%% .!. +$,, +)% , 0+ !. L. ed. 6'', *%). The city confessedly
#ay be sued under its existin. charter, and that i#plies at least a ri.ht to /ud.#ent
if they establish their de#ands.
The city as now incorporated has succeeded to all of the property ri.hts of the old
city and to the ri.ht to enforce all of its causes of action. There is identity of purpose
between the !panish and 7#erican charters and substantial identity of #unicipal
powers. The area and the inhabitants incorporated are substantially the sa#e.
4ut for the chan.e of soverei.nty which has occurred under the treaty of Paris, the
1uestion of the liability of the city under its new charter for the debts of the old city
would see# to be of easy solution.
The principal 1uestion would therefore see# to be the le.al conse1uence of the
cession referred to upon the property ri.hts and civil obli.ations of the city incurred
before the cession. 7nd so the 1uestion was #ade to turn in the court below upon
the conse1uence of a chan.e in soverei.nty and a reincorporation of the city by the
substituted soverei.nty.
This disposes of the 1uestion of the /urisdiction of this court, .rounded upon the
absence fro# the petition of the plaintifs of any distinct clai# under the treaty of
Paris, since, under $% of the Philippine or.anic act (00% .!. ),+, )+)- of July $,
$'%0 ()0 !tat. at L. 6'+, chap. $)6', . !. 8o#p. !tat. !upp. $'%', p. 006-, this
court is .iven /urisdiction to review any 3nal decree or /ud.#ent of the supre#e
court of the Philippine Islands where any treaty of the nited !tates 9is involved.9
That treaty was necessarily 9involved,9 since neither the court below nor this court
can deter#ine the continuity of the #unicipality, nor the liability of the city as it
now exists for the obli.ation of the old city, without considerin. the efect of the
chan.e of soverei.nty resultin. fro# that treaty. !ee :eavis v. ;ian<a, 0$+ .!. $6,
00 , +, !. L. ed. *0, *+, )% !up. 8t. rep. $.
The historical continuity of a #unicipality e#bracin. the inhabitants of the territory
now occupied by the city of Manila is i#pressive. 4efore the con1uest of the
Philippine Islands by !pain, Manila existed. The !paniards found on the spot now
occupied a populous and forti3ed co##unity of Moros. In $+*$ they occupied what
was then and is now 5nown as Manila, and established it as a #unicipal corporation.
In $+*, there was conferred upon it the title of 9Illustrious and ever loyal city of
Manila.9 ;ro# ti#e to ti#e there occurred a#end#ents, and, on January $', $&',,
there was a reor.ani<ation of the city .overn#ent under a royal decree of that date.
nder that charter there was power to incur debts for #unicipal purposes and
power to sue and be sued. The obli.ations here in suit were incurred under the
charter referred to, and are obviously obli.ations strictly within the provision of the
#unicipal power. To pay /ud.#ents upon such debts it was the duty of the
ayunta#iento of Manila, which was the corporate na#e of the old city, to #a5e
provision in its bud.et.
!7' 1%nt'nti%n t7at t7' lia-ilit. %; t7' 1it. ,p%n (,17 %-li+ati%n( 6a(
d'(tr%.'d -. a <'r' 17an+' %; (%v'r'i+nt. i( %-vi%,(l. %n' 67i17 i(
6it7%,t a (7ad%6 %; <%ral ;%r1', and, i; tr,', <,(t r'(,lt ;r%< ('ttl'd
prin1ipl'( %; ri+id la6. 2hile the contracts fro# which the clai#s in suit resulted
were in pro.ress, war between the nited (00% .!. ),+, )+,- !tates and !pain
ensued. =n 7u.ust $), $&'&, the city was occupied by the forces of this
.overn#ent, and its afairs conducted by #ilitary authority.
=n July )$, $'%$, the present incorporatin. act was passed, and the city since that
ti#e has been an autono#ous #unicipality. The charter in force is act $&) of the
Philippine 8o##ission, and now #ay be found as chapters 6& to *+ of the co#piled
acts of the Philippine 8o##ission. The $st section of the charter of $'%$ reads as
follows:
9The inhabitants of the city of Manila, residin. within the territory described in 0 of
this act, are hereby constituted a #unicipality, which shall be 5nown as the city of
Manila, and by that na#e shall have perpetual succession, and shall possess all the
ri.hts of property herein .ranted or heretofore en/oyed and possessed by the city of
Manila as or.ani<ed under !panish soverei.nty.9
The boundaries described in 0 include substantially the area and inhabitants which
had theretofore constituted the old city.
4y , of the sa#e act, the .overn#ent of the city was invested in a #unicipal board.
!ection $6 .rants certain le.islative powers to the board, and provides that it shall
9ta5e possession of all lands, buildin.s, o>ces, boo5s, papers, records, #oneys,
credits, securities, assets, accounts, or other property or ri.hts belon.in. to the
for#er city of Manila, or pertainin. to the business or interests thereof, and, sub/ect
to the provisions herein set forth, shall have control of all its property except the
buildin. 5nown as the ayunta#iento, provision for the occupation and control of
which is #ade in $+ of this act? shall collect taxes and other revenues, and apply
the sa#e in accordance with appropriations, as hereinbefore provided, to the
pay#ent of the #unicipal expenses? shall supervise and control the dischar.e of
o>cial duties by subordinates? shall institute /udicial proceedin.s to recover
property and (00% .!. ),+, )++- funds of the city wherever found, or otherwise to
protect the interests of the city, and shall defend all suits a.ainst the city,9 etc.
!ection 6' of the charter expressly preserved 9all city ordinances and orders in force
at the ti#e of the passa.e of this act, and not inconsistent herewith,9 until #odi3ed
or repealed by ordinances passed under this act.
!ection *0 is the repealin. clause, and provides for the repeal of 9all acts, orders,
and re.ulations9 which are inconsistent with the provisions of the act.
!7' 17art'r 1%ntain( n% r';'r'n1' t% t7' %-li+ati%n( %r 1%ntra1t( %; t7'
%ld 1it..
I; 6' ,nd'r(tand t7' ar+,<'nt a+ain(t t7' lia-ilit. 7'r' a(('rt'd, it
pr%1''d( <ainl. ,p%n t7' t7'%r. t7at ina(<,17 a( t7' pr'd'1'((%r %; t7'
pr'('nt 1it., t7' a.,nta<i'nt% %; Manila, 6a( a 1%rp%rat' 'ntit. 1r'at'd
-. t7' Spani(7 +%v'rn<'nt, 67'n t7' (%v'r'i+nt. %; Spain in t7' i(land(
6a( t'r<inat'd -. t7' tr'at. %; 1'((i%n, i; n%t -. t7' 1apit,lati%n %;
A,+,(t /3, /=0=, t7' <,ni1ipalit. ip(% ;a1t% di(app'ar'd ;%r all p,rp%('(.
!7i( 1%n1l,(i%n i( r'a17'd ,p%n t7' (,pp%('d anal%+. t% t7' d%1trin' %;
prin1ipal and a+'nt, t7' d'at7 %; t7' prin1ipal 'ndin+ t7' a+'n1.. S%
1%<pl't' i( t7' (,pp%('d d'at7 and anni7ilati%n %; a <,ni1ipal 'ntit. -.
'>tin1ti%n %; (%v'r'i+nt. %; t7' 1r'atin+ (tat' t7at it 6a( (aid in %n' %;
t7' %pini%n( -'l%6 t7at all %; t7' p,-li1 pr%p'rt. %; Manila pa(('d t% t7'
Unit'd Stat'(, ?;%r a 1%n(id'rati%n, 67i17 6a( paid,? and t7at t7' Unit'd
Stat'( 6a( t7'r';%r' @,(tiA'd in 1r'atin+ an a-(%l,t'l. n'6 <,ni1ipalit.,
and 'nd%6in+ it 6it7 all %; t7' a(('t( %; t7' d';,n1t 1it., ;r'' ;r%< an.
%-li+ati%n t% t7' 1r'dit%r( %; t7at 1it..
7nd so the #atter was dis#issed in the Tri.as 8ase by the court of 3rst instance, by
the su..estion that 9the plaintif #ay have a clai# a.ainst the 8rown of !pain,
which has received fro# the nited !tates pay#ent for that done by the
plaintif.9 (00% .!. ),+, )+6-
2e are unable to a.ree with the ar.u#ent. It loses si.ht of the dual character of
#unicipal corporations. They exercise powers which are .overn#ental and powers
which are of a private or business character. In the one character a #unicipal
corporation is a .overn#ental subdivision, and for that purpose exercises by
dele.ation a part of the soverei.nty of the state. In the other character it is a #ere
le.al entity or /uristic person. In the latter character it stands for the co##unity in
the ad#inistration of local afairs wholly beyond the sphere of the public purposes
for which its .overn#ental powers are conferred.
The distinction is observed in !outh 8arolina v. nited !tates, $'' .!. ,)*, ,6$ , +%
!. L. ed. 06$, 06', 06 !up. 8t. :ep. $$%, , 7. @ A. 7nn. 8as. *)*, where Lloyd v. Bew
Cor5, + B. C. )6', )*,, ++ 7#. "ec. ),*, and 2estern !av. ;und !oc. v. Philadelphia,
)$ Pa. $*+, *0 7#. "ec. *)%, are cited and approved. In Lloyd v. Bew Cor5, supra, it
is said:
9The corporation of the city of Bew Cor5 possesses two 5inds of powers: one
.overn#ental and public, and to the extent they are held and exercised, is clothed
with soverei.nty? the other private, and to the extent they are held and exercised, is
a le.al individual. The for#er are .iven and used for public purposes, the latter for
private purposes. 2hile in the exercise of the for#er, the corporation is a #unicipal
.overn#ent? and while in the exercise of the latter, is a corporate le.al individual.9
!ee also "ill. Mun. 8orp. ,th ed. 66? Petersbur. v. 7pple.arth, 0& Dratt. )0$, ),),
06 7#. :ep. )+*, and =liver v. 2orcester, $%0 Mass. ,&', ) 7#. :ep. ,&+.
In view of the dual character of #unicipal corporations there is no public reason for
presu#in. their total dissolution as a #ere conse1uence of #ilitary occupation or
territorial cession. The suspension of such .overn#ental functions as are obviously
inco#patible with the new political relations thus brou.ht about #ay be
presu#ed. (00% .!. ),+, )+*- 4ut no such i#plication #ay be reasonably
indul.ed beyond that result.
!uch a conclusion is in har#ony with the settled principles of public law as declared
by this and other courts and expounded by the textEboo5s upon the laws of war and
international law. Taylor, International Pub. Law , +*&.
That there is a total abro.ation of the for#er political relations of the inhabitants of
the ceded re.ion is obvious. That all laws theretofore in force which are in conFict
with the political character, constitution, or institutions of the substituted soverei.n,
lose their force, is also plain. 7lvare< y !anche< v. nited !tates, 0$6 .!. $6* , +,
L. ed. ,)0, )% !up. 8t. :ep. )6*.
B,t it i( 'C,all. ('ttl'd in t7' (a<' p,-li1 la6 t7at t7at +r'at -%d. %;
<,ni1ipal la6 67i17 r'+,lat'( privat' and d%<'(ti1 ri+7t( 1%ntin,'( in
;%r1' ,ntil a-r%+at'd %r 17an+'d -. t7' n'6 r,l'r. In 8hica.o, :. I. @ P. :. 8o.
v. McDlinn, $$, .!. +,0, +,6 , 0' !. L. ed. 0*%, 0*$, + !up. 8t. :ep. $%%+, it was
said:
9It is a .eneral rule of public law, reco.ni<ed and acted upon by the nited !tates,
that whenever political /urisdiction and le.islative power over any territory are
transferred fro# one nation or soverei.n to another, the #unicipal laws of the
country, that is, laws which are intended for the protection of private ri.hts,
continue in force until abro.ated or chan.ed by the new .overn#ent or soverei.n.
4y the cession, public property passes fro# one .overn#ent to the other, but
private property re#ains as before, and with it those #unicipal laws which are
desi.ned to secure its peaceful use and en/oy#ent. 7s a #atter of course, all laws,
ordinances, and re.ulations in conFict with the political character, institutions, and
constitution of the new .overn#ent are at once displaced. Thus, upon a cession of
political /urisdiction and le.islative powerEand the latter is involved in the for#erEto
the nited !tates, the laws of the country in support of an established reli.ion, or
abrid.in. the freedo# of the (00% .!. ),+, )+&- press, or authori<in. cruel and
unusual punish#ents, and the li5e, would at once cease to be of obli.atory force
without any declaration to that efect? and the laws of the country on other sub/ects
would necessarily be superseded by existin. laws of the new .overn#ent upon the
sa#e #atters. 4ut with respect to other laws afectin. the possession, use, and
transfer of property, and desi.ned to secure .ood order and peace in the
co##unity, and pro#ote its health and prosperity, which are strictly of a #unicipal
character, the rule is .eneral, that a chan.e of .overn#ent leaves the# in force
until, by direct action of the new .overn#ent, they are altered or repealed.9
The above lan.ua.e was 1uoted with approval in "ownes v. 4idwell, $&0 .!. 0,,,
0'& , ,+ !. L. ed. $%&&, $$$%, 0$ !up. 8t. :ep. **%.
!7at t7' Unit'd Stat'( <i+7t, -. virt,' %; it( (it,ati%n ,nd'r a tr'at.
1'din+ ;,ll titl', 7av' ,tt'rl. '>tin+,i(7'd 'v'r. <,ni1ipalit. 67i17 it
;%,nd in '>i(t'n1' in t7' P7ilippin' I(land(, <a. -' 1%n1'd'd. !7at it did
(%, in vi'6 %; t7' pra1ti1' %; nati%n( t% t7' 1%ntrar., i( n%t t% -'
pr'(,<'d, and 1an %nl. -' '(ta-li(7'd -. 1%+'nt 'vid'n1'.
That durin. #ilitary occupation the afairs of the city were in a lar.e part
ad#inistered by o>cials put in place by #ilitary order did not operate to dissolve
the corporation, or relieve it fro# liability upon obli.ations incurred before the
occupation, nor those created for #unicipal purposes by the ad#inistrators of its
afairs while its old o>cials were displaced. Bew =rleans v. Bew Cor5 Mail !. !. 8o.
0% 2all. )&*, )',, 00 L. ed. )+,, )+&. "urin. that occupation and #ilitary
ad#inistration the business of the city was carried on as usual. Taxes were assessed
and taxes collected and expended for local purposes, and #any of the o>cials
carryin. on the .overn#ent were those found in o>ce when the city was occupied.
The continuity of the corporate city was not inconsistent with #ilitary occupation or
the constitution or institutions of the occupyin. power. This (00% .!. ),+, )+'- is
#ade evident by the occurrences at the ti#e of capitulation.
Thus, the articles of capitulation concluded in these words: 9This city, its inhabitants,
. . . and its private property of all descriptions, are placed under the special
safe.uard of the faith and honor of the 7#erican 7r#y.9 This was 1uoted in
President McGinley9s instructions of 7pril *, $'%%, to the Philippine 8o##ission, and
touchin. this he said: 9I believe that this pled.e has been faithfully 5ept.9 7nd the
co##ission was directed to labor for the full perfor#ance of this obli.ation. This
instruction was in line with and in ful3l#ent of the &th article of the treaty of Paris of
"ece#ber $%, $&'&. nder the )d article of that treaty the archipela.o 5nown as
the Philippine Islands was ceded to the nited !tates, the latter a.reein. to pay to
!pain the su# of H0%,%%%,%%%. nder the 3rst para.raph of the &th article, !pain
relin1uished to the nited !tates 9all the buildin.s, wharves, barrac5s, forts,
structures, public hi.hways, and other i##ovable property which, in confor#ity
with law, belon. to the public do#ain, and as such belon. to the 8rown of !pain.9 It
is under this clause, in connection with the clause a.reein. to pay to !pain
H0%,%%%,%%% for the cession of the Philippine .roup, that the contention that all of
the public ri.hts of the city of Manila were ac1uired by the nited !tates, which
country was therefore /usti3ed, as absolute owner, in .rantin. the property ri.hts so
ac1uired to what is called the 9absolutely new corporation9 created thereafter. 4ut
the 1ualifyin. words touchin. property ri.hts relin1uished by !pain li#it the
relin1uish#ent to 9property which, in confor#ity with law, belon.in. to the public
do#ain, and as such belon. to the 8rown of !pain.9 It did not afect property which
did not, in 9confor#ity with law, belon. to the 8rown of !pain.9 That it was not
intended to apply to property which, 9in confor#ity with law,9 belon.ed to the city of
Manila as a #unicipal corE (00% .!. ),+, )6%- poration, is clear. This is
de#onstrated by the second para.raph of the sa#e article, which reads: 97nd it is
hereby declared that the relin1uish#ent or cession, as the case #ay be, to which
the precedin. para.raph refers, cannot in any respect i#pair the property or ri.hts
which by law belon. to the peaceful possession of property of all 5inds, of
provinces, #unicipalities, public or private establish#ents . . . havin. le.al capacity
to ac1uire and possess property in the aforesaid territories renounced or ceded, or
of private individuals.9 Thus, the property and property ri.hts of #unicipal
corporations were protected and safe.uarded precisely as were the property and
property ri.hts of individuals.
That the cession did not operate as extinction or dissolution of corporations is
herein reco.ni<ed, for the stipulation a.ainst i#pair#ent of their property ri.hts has
this plain si.ni3cance.
The conclusion we reach, that the le.al entity survived both the #ilitary occupation
and the cession which followed, 3nds support in the cases which hold that the
Pueblos of !an ;rancisco and Los 7n.eles, which existed as #unicipal or.ani<ations
prior to the cession of 8alifornia by Mexico, continued to exist with their co##unity
and property ri.hts intact. 8ohas v. :aisin, ) 8al. ,,)? Iart v. 4urnett, $+ 8al. +)%?
Townsend v. Dreeley, + 2all. )06, $& L. ed. +,*? Merry#an v. 4ourne, ' 2all. +'0,
6%0, $' L. ed. 6&), 6&6? Moore v. !teinbach, $0* .!. *% , )0 L. ed. +$, & !up. 8t.
:ep. $%6*? Los 7n.eles ;ar#in. @ Mill. 8o. v. Los 7n.eles, 0$* .!. 0$* , +, L. ed.
*)6, )% !up. 8t. :ep. ,+0.
2ere corporate identity and corporate liability extin.uished as a necessary le.al
result of the new charter .ranted in $'%$ by the Philippine 8o##issionJ The
inhabitants of the old city are the incorporators of the new. There is substantially
identity of area. There are so#e chan.es in the for# of .overn#ent and so#e
chan.es in corporate powers and #ethods of ad#inistration.
The new corporation is endowed with all of the property and (00% .!. ),+,
)6$- property ri.hts of the old. It has the sa#e power to sue and be sued which
the for#er corporation had. There is not the sli.htest su..estion that the new
corporation shall not succeed to the contracts and obli.ations of the old
corporation.
Layin. out of view any 1uestion of the constitutional .uaranty a.ainst i#pair#ent
of the obli.ation of contracts, there is, in the absence of express le.islative
declaration of a contrary purpose, no reason for supposin. that the reincorporation
of an old #unicipality is intended to per#it an escape fro# the obli.ations of the
old, to whose property and ri.hts it has succeeded.
The /uristic identity of the corporation has been in no wise afected, and, in law, the
present city is, in every le.al sense, the successor of the old. 7s such it is entitled to
the property and property ri.hts of the predecessor corporation, and is, in law,
sub/ect to all of its liabilities. 4rou.hton v. Pensacola ') .!. 066 , 0) L. ed. &'6? Mt.
Pleasant v. 4ec5with, $%% .!. +0% , 0+ L. ed. 6''? Mobile v. 2atson, $$6 .!. 0&' ,
0' L. ed. 60%, 6 !up. 8t. :ep. )'&? !haplei.h v. !an 7n.elo, $6* .!. 6,6, 6++ , ,0
!. L. ed. )$%, )$), $* !up. 8t. :ep. '+*? =98onnor v. Me#phis, 6 Lea, *)%?
8olchester v. !eaber, ) 4urr. $&66, $&*%, in which case, when a #unicipality
beca#e disabled to act and obtained a new charter, in an action upon an obli.ation
of the old corporation, there was /ud.#ent for the creditor, Lord Mans3eld sayin.:
9Many corporations, for want of le.al #a.istrates, have lost their activity, and
obtained new charters. Maidstone, :adnor, 8ar#arthen, and #any #ore are in the
sa#e case with 8olchester. 7nd yet it has never been disputed but that the new
charters revive and .ive activity to the old corporation? except, perhaps, in that
case in Levin<, where the corporation had a new na#e? and even there the court
#ade no doubt. 2here the 1uestion has arisen upon any re#ar5able
#eta#orphosis, it has always been deter#ined 9that they re#ain the sa#e as to
debts and ri.hts.K
Morris v. !tate, 60 Tex. *0&, *)%. (00% .!. ),+, )60- In !haplei.h v. !an 7n.elo,
supra, this court said in a si#ilar case: 9The state9s plenary power over its #unicipal
corporations to chan.e their or.ani<ation, to #odify their #ethod of internal
.overn#ent, or to abolish the# alto.ether, is not restricted by contracts entered
into by the #unicipality with its creditors or with private parties. 7n absolute repeal
of a #unicipal charter is therefore efectual so far as it abolishes the old corporate
or.ani<ation? but when the sa#e or substantially the sa#e inhabitants are erected
into a new corporation, whether with extended or restricted territorial li#its, such
new corporation is treated as in law the successor of the old one, entitled to its
property ri.hts, and sub/ect to its liabilities.9
The cases of Tri.as and Lilas went of upon de#urrers, and no 1uestion of re#edy
arises here.
The appeal of 7.uado is fro# a decree upon a 3nal hearin. denyin. hi# all relief.
That all three of the plaintifs in error are entitled to proceed to /ud.#ent when they
shall establish their several clai#s is obvious fro# what we have said. 4ut in the
7.uado 8ase it is sou.ht to establish his clai# as a char.e a.ainst certain property
and funds held by the city as trustee, 5nown as the 8arriedo fund. In $*), one "on
;rancisco 8arriedo y Perodo be1ueathed to the city a fund for the establish#ent of
waterwor5s, to be 5ept as a separate fund and devoted to the erection and
#aintenance of the wor5s. This fund was loyally 5ept and .reatly increased, and
was enlar.ed by a special tax upon #eat, devoted to that purpose. The wor5s were
3nally co#pleted in $&*&, and have been since operated by the city, the inco#e
and special tax .oin. to #aintenance. 8ertain securities belon.in. to the fund are
now held by the city, the inco#e bein. applied to the operation of the wor5s.
7.uado too5 a contract to supply coal for the use of the (00% .!. ),+,
)6)- 8arriedo wor5s, and #ade a deposit to .uarantee the contract. 2hen the city
was occupied by the 7#erican 7r#y it was indebted to hi# for coal so supplied, as
well as for the deposit so #ade. That the coal was bou.ht for and used in the
operation of the 8arriedo wor5s is not denied. 4ut there is no evidence that the
credit was .iven to the 8arriedo fund so held in trust under the will of 8arriedo. The
contract was #ade with the ayunta#iento of Manila, /ust as all other contracts for
city supplies or wor5s were #ade. The contract not havin. been #ade with special
reference to the liability of the fund held in trust by the city, but apparently upon
the .eneral credit of the city, we are not disposed to reverse the /ud.#ent of the
court below, holdin. that the clai# of 7.uado did not constitute a char.e upon the
8arriedo fund.
7.uado is, nevertheless, entitled to a /ud.#ent. The desi.nation of the city in the
petition as trustee #ay be re.arded as descriptive. The debt havin. been incurred
by the city, it #ust be re.arded as a city liability. Taylor v. "avis MTaylor v.
MayoN, $$% .!. ))%, ))6 , 0& !. L. ed. $6), $6+, , !up. 8t. :ep. $,*.
=ur conclusion is that the decree in the 7.uado 8ase #ust be reversed and the
case re#anded, with direction to render /ud.#ent and such other relief as #ay
see# in confor#ity with law. The /ud.#ents in the Tri.as and Lilas 8ases will be
reversed and the cases re#anded, with direction to overrule the respective
de#urrers, and for such other action as #ay be consistent with law, and consistent
with this opinion.