We cannot accept the conclusion, urged upon us by the counsel for the plaintiff in error, that the city of Plattsmouth had authority to issue the bonds in question, under the power conferred upon it as a municipal body, 'to borrow money for any purpose within its discretion,' without reference to the limit as to the amount imposed by the act of 1867, expressly authorizing it to build school-houses. Whatever implications of power as to school buildings might have been admissible, if the law conferring municipal powers had stood alone, must give place to the express declarations, with the accompanying qualifications, contained in the statute, that dealt by name with the very subject. And we must, therefore, assume, at the beginning, that while the city of Plattsmouth was authorized to erect a high-school building, it could not lawfully borrow money or issue its bonds for that purpose in excess of $15,000. We are, therefore, required to consider whether the issue of bonds involved in this litigation can be supported by the subsequent legislation which sought to cure the defects of their origin. No objection is made to either of the statutes relied on, on the ground that the constitution of Nebraska of 1867 forbade retroactive legislation. The twelfth section of article 1 of that instrument declares that 'no bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed.' This prohibition would not include legislation of the class now in question. They are attacked, however, on other grounds.
The first act,-that of February 18, 1873,-it is claimed, is made void by article 8 of section 1 of the constitution of Nebraska, which declares that 'the legislature shall pass no special act conferring corporate powers.' It is contended that the act in question, by legalizing bonds of the city, void because it had no power to issue them, is legally equivalent to an act conferring upon the city power to issue bonds, which is conferring corporate power, and, being a special act, is therefore unconstitutional. But this conclusion we cannot adopt.
The act in question, so far as it relates to the bonds in suit, does not confer any corporate power upon the city in the sense of the constitution of the state. The statute operates upon the transaction itself which had already previously been consummated, and seeks to give it a character and effect different in its legal aspect from that which it had when it was in fieri. Whether such an effect may be given by a legitimate exercise of legislative power, depends upon those considerations which draw the line beyond which retroactive laws cannot pass, and is not affected by the supposed form of the enactment as a special or general act conferring corporate power. For it operates upon the rights of the parties, as determined by the equity of their circumstances and relations, and gives to them the sanction derived from subsequent confirmation, by clothing them with forms which are essential to their enforcement, but not to their existence. Within the usual limitations prescribed by our written constitutions, such as have been quoted from that of Nebraska, this may be done, provided it can be done without the destruction of rights recognized by the law as vested.
In the present case, the statute in question does not impose upon the city of Plattsmouth, by an arbitrary act, a burden without consent and consideration. On the contrary, upon the supposition that the bonds issued, as to the excess over $15,000, were void, because unauthorized, the city of Plattsmouth received the money of the plaintiff in error, and applied it to the purpose intended, of building a school-house on property, the title to which is confirmed to it by the very statute now claimed to be unconstitutional, and an obligation to restore the value thus received, kept, and used, immediately arose. This obligation, according to general principles of law accepted in Nebraska, was capable of judicial enforcement. Clark v. Saline Co. 9 Neb. 516; [S.C.. 4 N. W. Rep. 496;] Louisiana v. Wood, 102 U.S. 294; New Orleans v. Clark, 95 U.S. 644; Hitchcock v. Galveston, 96 U.S. 341; Chapman v. County Com'rs Douglas Co. ante, 62, and City of Parkersburgh v. Brown, 1 SUP CT. REP. 442.
As was said by Mr. Justice FIELD, in New Orleans v. Clark, 95 U.S. 644-654: