Bohannon v. City of Louisville

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
Writing for the CourtHURT, C.J.
PartiesBOHANNON v. CITY OF LOUISVILLE ET AL.
Decision Date16 December 1921

235 S.W. 750

193 Ky. 276

BOHANNON
v.
CITY OF LOUISVILLE ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

December 16, 1921


Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Chancery Branch, Second Division.

Suit by Thomas Bohannon against the City of Louisville and others. Decree of dismissal, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. [235 S.W. 751]

Davies, Page & Downing, of Louisville, for appellant.

Arthur M. Rutledge and Davis W. Edwards, both of Louisville, for appellees.

HURT, C.J.

The single question for decision is whether, under the act of the General Assembly of March 15, 1912, which is chapter 90, Session Acts 1912, the city of Louisville is authorized to incur a bonded indebtedness of one million dollars, to be expended in the purchase of sites for schoolhouses, and the erection of schoolhouses for the high schools and other schools, and to purchase land for the enlargement of the existing school yards, in addition to a similar bonded indebtedness of one million dollars, which was contracted by virtue of that statute in the year of 1913.

The facts from which the controversy arises are that in the year 1913 the board of education made the certification to the general council of the city necessary under the statute to authorize the general council to adopt an ordinance submitting to the voters, at the regular municipal election, the question whether the city should incur an indebtedness of one million dollars, by the issue of bonds therefor, for the purposes set out in the statute, and the ordinance adopted by the general council complied in all respects with the requirements of the statute, and at the election the proposed issue of the bonds was approved by the requisite number of voters voting at the election and in pursuance to such direction, the city issued the bonds and is now annually paying a tax sufficient to pay the interest on the bonds, and to liquidate them at their maturity.

In 1921 the board of education again deemed it necessary for the proper accommodation of the schools to purchase other sites for schoolhouses, and to erect houses for the high schools and other schools, and to purchase lands for the enlargement of the present school yards, and, the annual funds from other sources being insufficient for such purpose, were of the opinion that a bond issue was necessary to obtain the necessary funds therefor, and it made an estimate of the amount of money required therefor and certified to the general council that an election, upon the question of whether bonds should be issued in the sum of one million dollars, should be held, and likewise the purposes to which the money obtained from such bonds should be applied, together with the estimate of the probable amount of money required, and the fact that the annual funds raised from other sources were insufficient, and that it deemed an issue of bonds necessary therefor. In pursuance of this certification, the general council adopted the necessary ordinance submitting the question of the proposed bond issue to the voters, at the regular municipal election held in November, 1921. The ordinance provided for all of the requirements designated by the statute. The requisite proportion of the voters voting at the election approved the issue of the bonds and the incurrence of the additional indebtedness by the city for the purposes designated and as specified by the ordinance. Pursuant to this direction of the voters, the authorities of the city were proposing to proceed to issue bonds, when the appellant sought by this action to restrain them from so doing, upon the ground that the city, by the bond issue of 1913, had exhausted its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • Gateway Const. Co. v. Wallbaum
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • February 9, 1962
    ...look to the language used, but no intention must be read into the statute not justified by the language. Bohannon v. City of Louisville, 193 Ky. 276, 235 S.W. 750. The primary rule is to ascertain the intention from the words employed in enacting the statute and not to guess what the Legisl......
  • Heleringer v. Brown, No. 2003-SC-0327-TG.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • May 7, 2003
    ...look to the language used, but no intention must be read into the statute not justified by the language. Bohannon v. City of Louisville, 193 Ky. 276, 235 S.W. 750. The primary rule is to ascertain the intention from the words employed in enacting the statute and not to guess what the Legisl......
  • Heleringer v. Brown III, 2003-SC-0327-TG.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • May 19, 2003
    ...look to the language used, but no intention must be read into the statute not justified by the language. Bohannon v. City of Louisville, 193 Ky. 276, 235 S.W. 750. The primary rule is to ascertain the intention from the words employed in enacting the Page 6 and not to guess what the Legisla......
  • Ball v. Tatum, No. 2011–CA–001716–ME.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • July 20, 2012
    ...we must examine the precise language used in the statute without reading into it words that are not there, Bohannon v. City of Louisville, 193 Ky. 276, 235 S.W. 750, 752 (1921), or guessing what the General Assembly might have intended to say but did not. Lewis v. Creasey Corporation, 198 K......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • Gateway Const. Co. v. Wallbaum
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • February 9, 1962
    ...look to the language used, but no intention must be read into the statute not justified by the language. Bohannon v. City of Louisville, 193 Ky. 276, 235 S.W. 750. The primary rule is to ascertain the intention from the words employed in enacting the statute and not to guess what the Legisl......
  • Heleringer v. Brown, No. 2003-SC-0327-TG.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • May 7, 2003
    ...look to the language used, but no intention must be read into the statute not justified by the language. Bohannon v. City of Louisville, 193 Ky. 276, 235 S.W. 750. The primary rule is to ascertain the intention from the words employed in enacting the statute and not to guess what the Legisl......
  • Heleringer v. Brown III, 2003-SC-0327-TG.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • May 19, 2003
    ...look to the language used, but no intention must be read into the statute not justified by the language. Bohannon v. City of Louisville, 193 Ky. 276, 235 S.W. 750. The primary rule is to ascertain the intention from the words employed in enacting the Page 6 and not to guess what the Legisla......
  • Ball v. Tatum, No. 2011–CA–001716–ME.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • July 20, 2012
    ...we must examine the precise language used in the statute without reading into it words that are not there, Bohannon v. City of Louisville, 193 Ky. 276, 235 S.W. 750, 752 (1921), or guessing what the General Assembly might have intended to say but did not. Lewis v. Creasey Corporation, 198 K......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT