Brown v. Village of Grangeville

• Decision Date: 17 January 1903
• Citation: 71 P. 151,8 Idaho 784
• Parties: BROWN v. VILLAGE OF GRANGEVILLE
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

71 P. 151

8 Idaho 784

BROWN v. VILLAGE OF GRANGEVILLE

Supreme Court of Idaho

January 17, 1903

"TOWNS" AND "VILLAGES" SYNONYMOUS TERMS-TOWNS AND VILLAGES-SUFFICIENCY OF BALLOTS FOR BONDING VILLAGES.-Under section 1, article 12, of the constitution, providing that "the legislature shall provide by general laws for the incorporation, organization and classification of the cities and towns, in proportion to the population, which laws may be altered, amended, or repealed by the general laws," and section 1 of the act approved February 2, 1899, entitled "An act to provide for the issue and sale of municipal coupon bonds, by incorporated cities and towns," etc which provides "that every city or town incorporated under the laws of the territory of Idaho, or of the state of Idaho, shall have power and authority to issue municipal coupon bonds," held, that a village organized under the general laws is included within the word "town." The legislature have used the words "town" and "village" as synonymous terms. Section 2 of the act approved February 2, 1899, above cited providing a form of ballot to be used at village elections in voting upon the proposition of issuing municipal bonds, is valid, and provides a sufficient form of ballot for such purpose.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from District Court, Idaho County.

Affirmed, with costs to respondents.

L Vineyard, for Appellant, cites no authorities not found in the opinion of the court.

Fogg & Nugent, for Respondents.

At the time of the adoption of the constitution of this state the words "town" and "village" were used as synonymous terms. Section 2224 of the Revised Statutes of Idaho provides that such municipal organizations shall be known as "town or village," and shall be a "body politic and corporate by the name and style of the inhabitants of the town of , or village of ." The words are used interchangeably, and a board of county commissioners in making an order of incorporation might designate one place as the "town of " and another as the "village of ," and yet their duties and powers would be the same. The supreme court of the United States have passed upon this identical question. The town of Enfield was incorporated under an act of the general assembly of the state of Illinois, entitled "An act to extend the corporate powers of the town of Enfield." The court, after an elaborate discussion of the meaning and use of the two words, say: "It seems to us that the legislature of Illinois, in the act for the incorporation of cities and villages (a later act), intended to avoid hereafter the ambiguous word 'town' as applied to the smaller classes of incorporated municipalities, and to designate them by the single term 'village.' This conclusion is, on the whole, so obvious that we do not hesitate to adopt it, and to hold that the town of Enfield is a village within the meaning of the amending act." (Town of Enfield v. Jordan, 119 U.S. 680, 7 S.Ct. 358.) The notice of election, the sufficiency of which is raised by the third specification of error, is certainly sufficient under the decision of this court in the recent case of Sommercamp v. Kelly, ante p. 712, 71 P. 147. Publication in a weekly newspaper for five consecutive weeks constitutes thirty days' publication. (Forsman v. Bright, ante, p. 467, 69 P. 473; Sommercamp v. Kelly, supra.)

AILSHIE, J. Sullivan, C. J., and Stockslager, J., concur.

OPINION

AILSHIE, J.

This is an appeal from an order refusing to grant an injunction. The plaintiff, who alleges that he is a citizen and taxpayer of the defendant village, filed his verified complaint, alleging the corporate existence of the village of Grangeville, and that the other defendants are the officers of the said village; that on the seventh day of June, 1902, the board of trustees of said village duly passed an ordinance entitled "An ordinance providing for the issuing of municipal coupon bonds for the purpose of providing funds for the erection of a village hall and office building, and to purchase a building site therefor; to provide for submitting the question of issuance of said bonds to a vote of the electors of said village, and calling a special election therefor," numbered Ordinance 78 of said village, and thereafter duly published the same; "that pursuant to said ordinance said board of trustees caused to be published in the 'Idaho County Free Press,' a newspaper published in said village, a notice of the election provided for by said ordinance for the full period of thirty days immediately preceding the said day so fixed by the said ordinance for the said special election"; that on the fifteenth day of July, 1902, and in pursuance of the provisions of said ordinance, an election was held for the purpose of voting upon the proposition of issuing the coupon bonds of said municipality to the amount of $ 5,000, and that at such election the vote resulted in favor of issuing the same; "that on the nineteenth day of July, 1902, said board of trustees caused a notice of their intention to issue said coupon bonds to be published"; and that said officers "propose and threaten to issue the said coupon bonds." To this complaint are attached, as exhibits, copies of said ordinance and notices. Defendants demurred to the complaint upon the grounds that same does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Upon this verified complaint and demurrer thereto, and after due notice of motion, the plaintiff applied to the court for an injunction restraining the sale of said bonds pending said action. After a hearing the court refused to grant a restraining order, and plaintiff appeals from the order.

Appellant assigns errors as follows: 1. There is no authority under the constitution or laws of the state of Idaho authorizing villages to issue bonds for any purpose whatever; 2. That Ordinance No. 78 of said village is insufficient, both in substance and in...