City of Columbus v. Woonsocket Institution of Savings
Decision Date | 25 February 1902 |
Docket Number | 1,055. |
Citation | 114 F. 162 |
Parties | CITY OF COLUMBUS v. WOONSOCKET INSTITUTION OF SAVINGS. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
This is a suit against the city of Columbus, a municipal corporation of the county of Colorado, state of Texas, to recover on municipal bonds issued by said corporation in the year 1883 for the purpose of erecting waterworks. The issue was $25,000 in coupon bonds, of $500 each, bearing interest at 8 per cent. per annum, payable semiannually; one-half falling due in 15 years; the other half, in 25 years. Interest was paid on the whole issue up to December 8, 1893, after which the city neglected and refused to pay. The present suit is to recover interest on the whole issue in default, and the one-half of the principal now due. In the circuit court trial by jury was waived, and the case submitted to the court, which made a finding of facts, and thereon rendered judgment for the full amount of the interest due, and one half the principal; reserving the right of the bondholders to hereafter recover principal and interest on the other half of the issue. The city of Columbus sues out this writ of error contending in this court, as in the court below, that the city of Columbus had no power to issue the bonds sued upon and that the said bonds were void, having been issued in violation of the constitution of the state of Texas in force at the time of their issuance.
M. E Kleberg, for plaintiff in error.
J. W. Terry, Rudolph Hatfield, and C. C. Everett, for defendant in error.
Before PARDEE, McCORMICK, and SHELBY, Circuit Judges.
PARDEE Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
From the facts as found by the trial judge, it appears that the city of Columbus, a municipal corporation in Colorado county, state of Texas, was in the year 1883 a city of less than 10,000, and about 3,000, inhabitants, with taxable property within its limits of the assessed value of $600,000, upon which was levied a tax of one-fourth of 1 per cent., and for that year there was levied and collected as occupation taxes the sum of $1,350, and as poll taxes the sum of $150, and during the same year the revenues of the city, collected and received in the shape of fines, amounted to $225; making a total revenue for the year 1883 of the said city of $3,225. It further appears that the current expenses of the city for the year for salaries and fees of its marshal and collector, per diem, of the council, etc., did not exceed the sum of $1,100, which would leave as net revenues for the year 1883 the sum of $2,115. On the 8th day of June of that year the city council of said city adopted an ordinance providing for the issuance by the city of coupon bonds to the amount of $25,000, to provide means for the erection of waterworks, and on June 15th following the said city council adopted an ordinance levying an ad valorem tax as follows:
'There shall be levied and collected, an annual ad valorem city tax of 1/4 of 1 per centum of the cash value thereof, estimated in lawful money of the United States, on all the movable property, and all the real property situated and owned in this city, on the first day of January of each and every year, except so much thereof as may be exempted by the constitution and laws of the state of Texas, and by ordinances of this city.'
On July 30, 1883, the city council of said city, by ordinance duly passed, repealed the aforementioned ordinance of June 8th, and at the same time passed a new ordinance whereby the said city of Columbus created a debt for the purpose of providing waterworks for the said city in the sum of $25,000, and authorized to be issued, to represent the same, coupon bonds for the said amount, bearing 8 per cent. interest per annum from the 8th day of June, 1883, payable semiannually,-- one half to fall due in 15 years, and the other half to fall due in 25 years, from June 8, 1883. At that time the constitution of the state contained provisions as follows:
Statutory provisions of the state in 1883 granting and regulating the powers of cities and towns suggested as pertinent to the questions in hand, and as shown by Rev. St. 1879, were as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Palmer v. City of Liberal
...Burrton, 75 F. 962; Iowa D. D. No. 1 v. Wilkins Co., 125 La. 133, 51 So. 91; Bank v. Terrell, 78 Tex. 450, 14 S.W. 1003; Columbus v. Woonsocket Sav. Inst., 114 F. 162; McPherson v. Foster, 43 Iowa 48. (c) The contract for power by the Cardin Company does not create general indebtedness or d......
-
Corbet v. Town of Rocksbury
... ... Helmer, 10 Neb. 65, 4 N.W. 968; South ... Platte v. City, 11 Neb. 344, 7 N.W. 859; McClure v ... Warner, 16 Neb ... ...
-
Rappaport v. Department of Public Health and Hospitals of City of Indianapolis
... ... v. Burrton, ... C.C. 1896, 75 F. 962; City of Columbus v. Woonsocket ... Sav. Institution, 5 Cir., 1902, 114 F. 162 ... [88 ... ...
-
Truman v. Inhabitants of Town of Harmony
... ... 'No ... city or town shall hereafter create any debt or liability, ... 44; s.c., 54 F. 487, 4 C.C.A. 460; ... Columbus v. Woonsocket Inst. of Savings, 114 F. 162, ... 52 C.C.A ... ...