Drummond v. City of Columbus
| Decision Date | 27 June 1939 |
| Docket Number | 30507. |
| Citation | 286 N.W. 779,136 Neb. 87 |
| Parties | DRUMMOND v. CITY OF COLUMBUS ET AL. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The case of Hurd v. City of Fairbury, 87 Neb. 745, 128 N.W. 638, distinguished.
Appeal from District Court, Platte County; Spear, Judge.
On motion for rehearing.
Rehearing denied.
For former opinion, see 285 N.W. 109.
Walter, Flory & Schmid, of Columbus, for appellant.
Emil F. Luckey, of Columbus, for Drummond.
C. J Garlow and Charles H. Sheldon, both of Columbus, and Perry VanPelt & Marti, of Lincoln, for City of Columbus.
Lowell L. Walker, of Columbus, for Henggeler.
Heard before SIMMONS, C. J., ROSE, EBERLY, PAINE, CARTER, and MESSMORE, JJ., and POLK, District Judge.
An opinion was adopted in this case which appears in 285 N.W. 109.The case is again before us on a motion for rehearing.
Appellees contend that this court overlooked the principle of law involved in the case of Hurd v. City of Fairbury, 87 Neb. 745, 128 N.W. 638, 641.In the Hurd case, the statute authorized the " purchase, erection, or construction" of a public utility. The proposition was submitted to the electors in the words of the statute, and this court held that the proposition as submitted did not constitute a dual proposition, nor a proposition in the alternative, but that it amounted to a submission of a single, definite proposition. The case is clearly distinguishable from the one at bar. In the instant case, the proposition submitted was whether the city should " construct, purchase, or otherwise acquire an electric light and power distribution system, and/or transmission lines, and real and personal property needed or useful in connection therewith." In the Hurd case the question in effect was: Shall the city acquire an electric light plant by purchase, erection, or construction? The question submitted was single, the selection of the method being administrative only. But, in the case now before us, more than one question was submitted. The proposition in effect submitted these questions: Shall the city acquire an electric light and distribution system? Shall the city acquire transmission lines? The use of the symbol " and/or" certainly makes the proposition submitted indefinite and uncertain and leaves to the city authorities, not an administrative decision, but the absolute discretion as to whether either one or both of two separate and distinct...
To continue reading
Request your trial