City of Cedar Rapids v. Bechtel

• Decision Date: 16 January 1900
• Citation: 81 N.W. 468,110 Iowa 196
• Parties: CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS v. BECHTEL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

110 Iowa 196

81 N.W. 468

CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS

v.BECHTEL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 16, 1900.

Appeal from superior court of Cedar Rapids; Thomas M. Giberson, Judge.

Action to enforce specific performance of contract. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.Lewis Block, for appellant.

John M. Redmond and John N. Hughes, for appellee.

SHERWIN, J.

This cause was tried in the superior court upon an agreed statement of facts, from which it appears that the city of Cedar Rapids has outstanding warrants to the amount of $205,000, of issue as follows: In 1894, $24,533.28; in 1895, $31,698.19; in 1896, $41,569.78; in 1897, $37,473.82; in 1898, $68,382.56. It is agreed that all of these warrants were issued for ordinary, necessary, and current expenses of the city, for purposes authorized and required, and in good faith, and that the amount of warrants issued in each of the respective years, 1894 to 1898, inclusive, including among others the said warrants proposed to be funded, were within the limits of the taxes and other revenue of the city for each of the said years, respectively, “and issued against, and payable out of, the different funds thus appropriated and to be collected in each of said years, and their payment contemplated from the current revenue of the city for the year in which the warrants were issued.” It is also agreed that prior to 1894 “warrants had been issued in like manner for ordinary, current, and necessary expenses of the city, payable out of the current revenue and taxes levied by the city, but which were not sufficient to pay said warrants issued prior to 1894, and that the current revenue of the city derived from the taxes levied from 1894 to 1898, inclusive, and other revenues, were used in part by the city to pay outstanding warrants issued in previous years, instead of being applied to the warrants issued for the current expenses of the city.” The city desired to fund $205,000 of the warrants outstanding for the years 1894 to 1898, inclusive, and entered into an agreement with the defendant whereby it agreed to issue its bonds for that purpose and amount, and the defendant agreed to purchase them. At the time of this agreement the city had a bonded indebtedness of $120,000. It is contended by appellant that the warrants in question were issued in contravention of section 3, art. 11, of the constitution, and do not evidence a legal and valid debt of the city. This contention cannot be sustained in ...