Crocheron v. Shea

• Citation: 6 Idaho 593,57 P. 707
• Parties: CROCHERON v. SHEA ET AL., AS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
• Decision Date: 09 June 1899
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho

57 P. 707

6 Idaho 593

CROCHERON v. SHEA ET AL., AS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Supreme Court of Idaho

June 9, 1899

FINDING WARRANT INDEBTEDNESS-VALIDITY OF BONDS - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-VALIDATING ACT.-A board of county commissioners proceeded under the provisions of the act of March 8, 1895, to fund outstanding warrant indebtedness of the county, submitting the question to the electors at an election called for the purpose, at which election more than two-thirds of the electors voted in favor of issuing the proposed bonds; after due notice, bids were received, and one bid for the entire issue was accepted, the bonds duly engraved and signed ready for delivery when an agreed case was submitted to the district court for the purpose of determining the validity of the proposed bonds, the principal contention being that said act of March 8, 1895, was void; 1. Because not constitutionally passed; 2. Because the subject thereof was not expressed in the title. Held, that the legislature having re- enacted the act of March 8, 1895, and passed an act validating all bonds theretofore issued under said act, that the court will not inquire into or determine the validity of said act as originally passed, as such question is immaterial to the validity of the proposed bonds.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from District Court, Owyhee County.

Judgment reversed, without costs and cause remanded, with instructions.

S. H Hays and Kingsbury & Parsons, for Appellant.

We have never heard the subject matter of the act of 1895 questioned as to any of its provisions. This act provides two methods of issuance of bonds. Which method is to be pursued depends, not wholly on mind of board of county commissioners, but depends rather on what use, effect and object is to be accomplished with the bonds. If their issuance is to increase or to create any indebtedness of the county, then, under article 8 section 3, of our constitution, this question must be submitted to a vote of the people. But if, on the other hand their issuance is not to create nor to increase any indebtedness, then said provision of the constitution has no application. It is conceded that either a sale of the bonds for cash, or the giving of a valid negotiable obligation for an invalid non-negotiable claim, would be the creation and increasing of the indebtedness of the county and comes under the provisions of section 3, article 8 of constitution. On the other hand, an exchange of one form of indebtedness for another drawing less interest does not create any indebtedness and its effect is to decrease the liability. The statute says such an exchange may be made when the county's interest requires and "without vote of the people." In short, the statutes assumes that the board may be by the legislature empowered to decrease the county's liability by an exchange of form of evidence of indebtedness and lowering rate of interest without violating any provision of constitution relating to increase or creation of indebtedness. This would seem to be a self-evident proposition. This statute of 1895 seems to have been drawn by one familiar with the case of Doon Tp. v. Cummins, 142 U.S. 366, 12 S.Ct. 220. (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lyon Co., 82 F. 933; Board of Commrs. v. Standley, 24 Colo. 1, 49 P. 26; Hotchkiss v. Marion, 12 Mont. 218, 29 P. 821.) Certainly we do not need to cite authorities to the point that proceedings under an act, valid as to its provisions, and questioned only as to method of passage, can be validated by subsequent legislation. We herewith quote in full the validating act of 1899: "Section 1. All bonds heretofore duly issued under, in pursuance or by virtue of, and in accordance with, the provisions of any act of the first, second, third or fourth sessions of the legislature of the state of Idaho are hereby declared to be good, valid and binding obligations, any question as to the manner of the passage of any such act or acts notwithstanding; and their validity shall not be questioned in any court." Approved March 6, 1899. We refer to but one authority, as we find none contra. (Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 6th ed., 466.)

J. G. Watts, for Respondent, files no brief.

QUARLES, J. Huston, C. J., and Sullivan, J., concur.

OPINION

QUARLES, J.

On October 26, 1897, an agreed case, without action, under the statute, was filed in the court below, in which statement is contained a transcript of House and Senate journals of the...