Franklin Trust Co. v. City of Loveland, Colorado
Decision Date | 03 December 1924 |
Docket Number | No. 6710.,6710. |
Citation | 3 F.2d 114 |
Parties | FRANKLIN TRUST CO. v. CITY OF LOVELAND, COLORADO, et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Paul W. Lee, of Ft. Collins, Colo. (George H. Shaw, of Ft. Collins, Colo., on the brief), for appellant.
John H. Fry, of Denver, Colo. (James H. Pershing, of Denver, Colo., Ab H. Romans, of Loveland, Colo., and Robert G. Bosworth, of Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellees.
Before LEWIS, Circuit Judge, and MUNGER and MILLER, District Judges.
This suit was brought by appellant to enjoin the City of Loveland, Colorado, from issuing bonds for the construction of a municipal light and power plant, because, as alleged, the bonds would create an indebtedness of the city in excess of the amount permitted by the State constitution, which reads (Section 8 of Article 11):
This limitation on amount of indebtedness is also statutory. The amount of the bonds authorized by the city is in excess of three per cent. of the assessed valuation. The right and power of the city to erect its own plant is not questioned or doubted; the restriction relates only to raising funds for that purpose. The ordinance authorizing the erection of the plant and the issuance of the bonds did not provide for a tax levy to meet payments of interest and principal or any part thereof. It sets out the form of the bonds, designating them as "Loveland Municipal Light and Power Revenue Bonds," each of which when issued should contain this in the body of the bond and as part thereof:
Also each interest coupon attached to each of said bonds was to contain a clause that the city would pay the bearer the amount thereof "out of the Loveland Electric Light and Power Fund, but not otherwise." Section 8 of the ordinance provides that the bonds "shall be payable only out of the revenues derived from the municipal light and power system placed in a fund to be created as in this ordinance provided, to be known as the Loveland Light and Power Revenue Fund." Sections 11 and 12 of the ordinance read thus:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Interstate Power Co. v. Incorporated Town of McGregor
... ... Cor ... Van de Steeg, of Orange City, and Stipp, Perry, Bannister & Starzinger, of Des Moines, ... City of Loveland, 74 Colo. 27, 218 P. 913; Reimer v ... Town of Holyoke, ... Kirby, 220 Ky. 839, 295 S.W. 1004; ... Security Trust Co. v. City of Paris, 264 Ky. 846, 95 ... S.W.2d 781; ... 572, 172 ... S.E. 717; Franklin Trust Co. v. City of Loveland, 8 ... Cir., 3 F.2d 114; ... ...
-
Sager v. City of Stanberry
... ... Lumbermen's State Bank, ... 193 Mich. 533, 160 N.W. 425; Franklin Ave. German Savs ... Bank v. Board of Education, 75 Mo. 408; Uhler v ... 878; Bowling Green v. Kirby, ... 295 S.W. 1005; Franklin Trust Co. v. Loveland, 3 ... F.2d 114; Shields v. Loveland, 218 P. 913; ... ...
-
Palmer v. City of Liberal
... ... 475; 3 Words & Phrases (2 Ed.) ... 1049; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Sugar Co., 150 F. 680; ... Maxwell v. Mfg. Co., 77 F. 941; ... Steines v. Franklin County, 48 Mo. 176; Johnson v ... Railroad, supra; Lyons v. School ... 82; Bell v. Fayette, 325 Mo ... 75; Franklin Trust Co. v. Loveland, Colo., 3 F.2d ... 114; McCutchen v. City of Siloam, 49 S.W.2d 1037 ... ...
-
Hight v. City of Harrisonville
... ... Fayette, 28 S.W.2d 361; Shields v. City of ... Loveland, 74 Colo. 27, 218 P. 913; Franklin Trust ... Co. v. City of Loveland, ... ...