Corker v. Village of Mountainhome

• Citation: 116 P. 108,20 Idaho 32
• Parties: C. E. CORKER, Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF MOUNTAINHOME, Respondent
• Decision Date: 31 May 1911
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

116 P. 108

20 Idaho 32

C. E. CORKER, Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF MOUNTAINHOME, Respondent

Supreme Court of Idaho

May 31, 1911

BONDING ORDINANCE-NOTICE OF ELECTION-PURPOSE OF BONDING.

(Syllabus by the court.)

1. A village ordinance and a notice of election which state the purpose of a proposed bond issue as follows: "To provide the funds necessary to pay the cost and expense of the installation and construction of a complete waterworks system for the village of Mountainhome, and to purchase a site and location for a powerhouse and water-power rights for the purpose of pumping water or any other power or machinery that may be found necessary, for the purchase of materials for said works and improvements, and for the construction of the same," are in substantial compliance with the provisions of sec. 2316 of the Rev. Codes, and state and propose only a single purpose, namely, the installation and construction of a complete waterworks system for the village.

2. The fact that a village ordinance and notice of election proposing the issuance of municipal coupon bonds state incidental and auxiliary purposes to be accomplished, and for which money must be expended in the construction of a complete waterworks system, does not render the ordinance or notice of election of an omnibus character, or include more than one purpose within the purview of the statute, sec 2316, Rev. Codes.

3. The statement in an ordinance of incidental and subsidiary means that must be employed and for which money must be expended in the construction of a waterworks system does not render the ordinance void or invalid on the ground of stating more than one purpose.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, in and for the County of Elmore. Hon. C. O. Stockslager, Judge.

Action by plaintiff to enjoin the issuance and sale of certain municipal coupon bonds. Judgment for the defendant, and plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded in favor of respondent.

A. H Brickenstein, for Appellant.

In elections of this character, the ballots must be so prepared that every elector may declare his choice as to each purpose and the amount proposed to be applied thereto must also be stated. At the election held in Mountainhome, the electors had three alternatives: First, to vote for all the purposes collectively; second, to vote against them all collectively; and third, to abstain from voting. Under such circumstances, it is impossible to determine what the real wishes of the voters may have been with regard to the questions involved. The courts have repeatedly condemned proceedings of this character. (Tiedeman's Mun. Corp., sec. 189; Metcalfe v. Seattle, 1 Wash. 305, 25 P. 1010; Sioux Falls v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 136 F. 721, 69 C. C. A. 373; Elyria Gas Co. v. City of Elyria, 57 Ohio St. 374, 49 N.E. 335; Derby v. Modesto, 104 Cal. 515, 38 P. 900.)

W. L. Harvey, for Respondent.

Every purpose expressed in the ordinance, notice of election, and all other notices are incidental to the main purpose of constructing and installing a waterworks system, and are, therefore, but necessary parts of the principal purpose and not independent of it. And it cannot be said that such purposes invalidate the ordinances or notice, or in any way misled the voters as to the questions which they were balloting upon. (City of San Diego v. Potter, 153 Cal. 288, 95 P. 146; People v. Counts, 89 Cal. 15, 26 P. 612; State ex rel. Bank v. Tallman, 29 Wash. 411, 69 P. 1115; 11 Cyc. 557; 21 Ency. Law, 47; Gilbert v. Canyon County, 14 Idaho 437, 94 P. 1029; McGilvery v. Lewiston, 13 Idaho 338, 90 P. 348.)

"The test of the sufficiency or validity of a notice is not whether the words and punctuation as prescribed by the statutes were used, but whether the voters at the general election held pursuant to such notice understood the questions submitted to them." (Sommercamp v. Kelly, 8 Idaho 712, 71 P. 147; Abbott's Mun. Corp., p. 424; Brown v. Ingalls, 81 F. 485; Cleveland v. Calvert, 54 S.C. 83, 31 S.E. 871; State v. Millar, 21 Okla. 448, 96 P. 747; City of Cheyenne v. State, 17 Wyo. 90, 96 P. 244; R. R. Co. v. Commissioners, 116 N.C. 563, 21 S.E. 205; Blakey v. City Council, 144 Ala. 481, 39 So. 745.)

OPINION

AILSHIE, Presiding J.

This action was instituted in the district court in and for Elmore county by the appellant as a taxpayer of the village of Mountainhome, seeking to enjoin and restrain the village authorities from the issuance and sale of municipal coupon bonds of the village of Mountainhome in the sum of $ 35,000, for the purpose of constructing and installing a system of waterworks for the use and benefit of the inhabitants of the village. The district court held in favor of the village and denied the plaintiff any relief. This appeal has been prosecuted from the judgment and order so made and entered.

It appears from the record that the city council duly and regularly passed an ordinance, submitting the question to the voters of the municipality as to whether or not the bonds of the village should be issued for the purpose therein designated. Notice of the holding of the election was thereafter given, and the election was held, which resulted in favor of the bond issue as proposed. The village authorities thereupon advertised for bids, and thereafter received and accepted a bid from William E. Sweet & Co., Denver, Colo., and are now about to execute and deliver the bonds and receive the purchase price therefor.

The first question raised, as stated in the appellant's complaint and argued in his brief, is as follows: "The said ordinance, the said notice of election, all notices thereunder, and the form of the various questions submitted to the voters thereby, are of an omnibus character and involve a number of independent and conflicting purposes." The ordinance passed by the village trustees states the purpose of the proposed bond issue as follows: "To provide the funds necessary to pay the cost and expense of the installation and construction of a complete waterworks system for the village of Mountainhome, and to purchase a site and location for a power-house and water-power rights for the purpose of pumping water or any other power or machinery that may be found necessary, for the purchase of materials for said works and improvements, and for the construction of the same."

It also prescribes the manner in which the question shall be submitted to the electors as follows: "In favor of issuing bonds to the amount of $ 35,000 for the purpose...