Grossman v. Pub. Water Supply Dist.

• Decision Date: 22 August 1936
• Docket Number: No. 35149.,35149.
• Citation: 96 S.W.2d 701
• Parties: EMANUEL GROSSMAN, Appellant v. PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT NO. ONE OF CLAY COUNTY, a Public Corporation, E.E. DAVIDSON and SALLY C. HALL.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

96 S.W.2d 701

EMANUEL GROSSMAN, Appellant v. PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT NO. ONE OF CLAY COUNTY, a Public Corporation, E.E. DAVIDSON and SALLY C. HALL.

No. 35149.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

Court en Banc, August 22, 1936.

Appeal from Clay Circuit Court. — Hon. Ralph L. Lozier, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Jules E. Kohn for appellant.

Jerome Walsh, Charles & Trauernicht, Seward McKittrick and L.E. Bates for respondents.

(1) The provision of the act authorizing the inclusion within the district of territory lying in the corporate limits of a city is germane to the subject matter set forth in the title. State ex rel. Webster Groves Sanitary Sewer Dist. v. Smith, 87 S.W. (2d) 147. (a) The act contains but one general subject, namely, the establishment of a system of public water supply in certain counties and all the provisions of the act are germane to that subject. State ex rel. Webster Groves Sanitary Sewer Dist. v. Smith, supra. (2) The Act of the Fifty-eighth General Assembly (Laws 1935, p. 327) is not void. (a) In that it attempts to create a new class of municipal corporations in addition to the four constitutional classes. (b) Nor in that it diminishes the corporate powers of cities, towns or villages embraced in whole or in part within the district. (c) Nor does it attempt to deprive any city, town, or village of its jurisdiction or control over any water system it may have. Laws 1935, p. 327, sec. 3; State ex rel. Webster Groves Sanitary Sewer Dist. v. Smith, 87 S.W. (2d) 152; State ex inf. Gentry v. Curtis, 319 Mo. 327, 45 S.W. (2d) 467. (3) The said act is not a special or local act regulating the affairs of counties and cities since it applies to all counties showing a certain population. State ex rel. Webster Groves v. Smith, 87 S.W. (2d) 152; Thomas v. Buchanan County, 330 Mo. 627, 51 S.W. (2d) 95. (4) Section 16 of the resolution of the board of directors of the district makes provision for the payment from revenues of the district of the costs of operation and maintenance without limitation as to amount. In limiting the amount of funds to be set aside for depreciation, necessary extensions and repairs to five per cent of the revenues of the district, Section 16 of said resolution does not conflict with the aforesaid Act of the Fifty-eighth General Assembly. (a) The act does not require any definite amount or percentage to be set aside for the depreciation and necessary extensions and enlargements. (b) The provisions of Section 16 constitute an administrative determination, lawfully made, that five per cent of the revenues of the district will be sufficient to provide for depreciation and necessary extensions and enlargements. (c) The amount to be set aside for said purposes lies within the sound administrative discretion of the board of directors, and that discretion has been lawfully exercised in Section 16 of the aforesaid resolution. Selecman v. Matthews, 15 S.W. (2d) 788. (d) Section 20 of the aforesaid resolution merely pledges sums sufficient to pay the special obligation bonds of the district, and cannot for that reason be in conflict with any provisions of the aforesaid act. The pledge of sufficient revenues to pay the bonds is specifically required by the statute. Laws 1935, p. 335. (5) The special obligation bonds herein proposed to be issued do not constitute the incurrence of a debt in excess of the limitation imposed by Section 12, Article X of the Constitution of Missouri. (a) Only the general obligation bonds in the amount of $205,000 constitute a debt of the district within the meaning of the aforesaid constitutional limitation. (b) The special obligation bonds being payable solely and only out of the income and revenues to be derived from the waterworks system to be constructed, in part, from the proceeds of the sale of such bonds, do not constitute a debt within the meaning of said constitutional limitation. State ex rel. Smith v. Neosho, 203 Mo. 40; Bell v. Fayette, 325 Mo. 75; State ex rel. Hannibal v. Smith, 74 S.W. (2d) 367. The special obligation bonds herein proposed to be issued do not become a "debt" of the district within the meaning of Section 12, Article X of the State Constitution merely because the proposed water supply system will be constructed, partly from the proceeds of such bonds and partly from the proceeds of tax secured bonds of the district, despite the fact that the revenue from the entire system thus constructed will be pledged to the payment of such special obligation bonds. State ex rel. Smith v. Neosho, 203 Mo. 40; State ex rel. Hannibal v. Smith, 335 Mo. 825, 74 S.W. (2d) 367; Hight v. Harrisonville, 328 Mo. 549; Hagler v. Salem, 333 Mo. 330, 62 S.W. (2d) 754; Sager v. Stanberry, 78 S.W. (2d) 431; State ex rel. Excelsior Springs v. Smith, 82 S.W. (2d) 41; Searle v. Haxtun, 84 Colo. 494, 271 Pac. 629; Maffit v. Decatur, 322 Ill. 82, 152 N.E. 602; Schummacher v. Klitzing, 269 Ill. App. 64; Ward v. Chicago, 342 Ill. 167, 173 N.E. 810; Long v. Cavalier, 59 N.D. 75, 228 N.W. 819; Underwood v. Fairbanks, Morse & Co., 205 Ind. 316, 185 N.E. 119; Cathcart v. Columbia, 170 S.C. 302, 170 S.E. 438; Seward v. Bowers, 37 N.M. 385, 24 Pac. (2d) 253; State of Florida v. Miami, 113 Fla. 280, 152 So. 6; Roach v. Columbia, 172 S.C. 478, 174 S.E. 461; Casto v. Ripley, 173 S.E. 886; State ex rel. Blume v. State Board of Education, 97 Mont. 371, 34 Pac. (2d) 515; Bowling Green v. Kirby, 220 Ky. 839, 173 N.E. 810; 72 A.L.R. 695; 96 A.L.R. 1393.

ELLISON, C.J.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Clay County Circuit Court dismissing his bill for an injunction after a demurrer thereto had been sustained and he had declined to plead further. Owing to the public importance of the questions involved and the necessity for an early decision thereof, the appeal has been advanced on our docket and the parties have waived oral argument and submitted the cause on briefs. The respondent is a public water supply district organized under Laws 1935, page 327, and proposes to issue certain bonds as authorized thereby. The appellant, a landowner in the district, seeks to enjoin the issuance of the bonds on the grounds: that the act is unconstitutional in several particulars; that the resolution of the board of directors providing for the issuance of the bonds violates the Constitution; and that said resolution is invalid because it conflicts with the act.

The act is long and we shall not attempt to state its provisions here, but will review them as necessary in the course of the opinion. Suffice it to say it provides for the organization and incorporation of Public Water Supply Districts in counties now or hereafter having a population of 25,000 inhabitants or more, by proceedings in the circuit court (much like the proceedings for the organization of drainage and sewer districts) for the purpose of furnishing to the public pure and wholesome water for all needful purposes from common sources of supply.

I. The first assignment in the appellant's brief is that the act violates Section 28, Article IV of the Constitution of Missouri because it contains more than one subject, and the subject matter thereof is not clearly expressed in the title. The title is as follows: "An Act to provide for the incorporation, organization and management of public corporations in counties which now have, or may hereafter have, a population of twenty-five thousand inhabitants or more to be known as public water supply districts; for the acquisition or construction by said districts of waterworks for public and private use; for the enlargement, improvement, and maintenance of said works; for the acquisition of all property necessary therefor; for the raising of funds to carry into effect purposes of this act; for providing for fire hydrants; and for distribution of water by said districts."

The parts of the act which it is claimed are not germane to the general subject of the legislation and which range outside the field foreshown by the title, are as follows: Section 3 provides public water supply districts may include contiguous territory in one or more counties, and may take in school districts, or parts thereof, and cities that do not have a waterworks system. Sections 4 and 6, taken together, require the decree of incorporation to divide the district into five subdistricts and provide that one member of the board of directors shall be chosen from each subdistrict.

Appellant's contention that these provisions make the act double and that they are smuggled in under a masked title is wholly untenable. Discussion is not needed to show that a provision specifying what territory may be included in such districts not only has a natural relation to the legislative project, but is necessary to its accomplishment, or at least to the clarity of the law. The same is true of the provision fixing the number of directors and the parts of the district from which they shall come. And while the title of the act does not specifically cover these details, that could hardly have been done without making the title as long as the act itself if the same course were followed throughout. The title does announce the act provides for the incorporation, organization and management of public water supply districts in counties now or hereafter having at least 25,000 population, and that is sufficient to comprehend the provisions here brought into question. [State ex rel. Webster Groves Sanitary Sewer District v. Smith, 337 Mo. 855, 867, 87 S.W. (2d) 147, 151; State Square Auto Supply Co. v. Gerk, 325 Mo. 968, 981, 30 S.W. (2d) 447, 453; State v. Mullinix, 301 Mo. 385, 390, 257 S.W. 121, 123.]

II. Preliminary to stating appellant's next assignment of error, we must sketch further provisions of the act. Sections 5 and 13 thereof authorize public water supply districts to contract indebtedness for certain purposes and to issue general or special obligation bonds, or both, therefor. In this instance the respondent district...