Hagler v. City of Salem
Citation | 62 S.W.2d 751,333 Mo. 330 |
Decision Date | 03 August 1933 |
Docket Number | 30790 |
Parties | J. W. Hagler, Appellant, v. City of Salem, George H. Slawson, Mayor, T. F. Key, Joseph Norton, Arch Redwine, E. E. Martin, Members of the Board of Aldermen, Geo. Redwine, Treasurer; Fairbanks, Morse & Company, a Corporation of the State of Illinois |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Howell Circuit Court; Hon. W. H. D. Green Judge.
Reversed and remanded (with directions).
WM. P Elmer for appellant.
(1) The contract sought to be enjoined is in violation of Sections 12 and 12A, Article 10, of the Constitution in that: (a) The debt contracted exceeded the limitations fixed by said sections. (b) The debt was created for an electric light plant owned by the city and company and was not the exclusive property of the city as required by Section 12A. (2) This case is practically in point with the Harrisonville case recently decided by this court, so counsel cite such case as final authority on the questions presented. Hight v. City of Harrisonville, 41 S.W.2d 155; Bell v. City of Fayette, 28 S.W.2d 357; City of Campbell v Arkansas-Missouri Power Co., 55 F.2d 560. (3) Plaintiff has a right to maintain this suit as his interest as a taxpayer is directly or indirectly affected. Rutherford v. Tayler, 38 Mo. 315; Carson v. Sullivan, 284 Mo. 353; Sec. 1419, R. S. 1929.
E. W. Bennett, Jones, Hocker, Sullivan & Gladney and Willard A. McCaleb for respondents.
(1) The city had ample power to make the contract, and it is not invalid because the company reserved title to the machinery sold as security for the purchase price. Bell v. City of Fayette, 28 S.W.2d 356; Hight v. City of Harrisonville, 41 S.W.2d 155; State ex rel. v. Neosho, 203 Mo. 40; R. S. 1929, secs. 7028, 7641, 7682; State ex rel. v. Hackman, 273 Mo. 670; Evans v. McFarland, 186 Mo. 703; Lang v. City of Cavalier, 228 N.W. 819; Johnson v. City of Stuart, 226 N.W. 164; Carr v. Fenstermacher, 228 N.W. 114. (2) A contract to pay the purchase price of a municipally owned plant does not create a municipal indebtedness within constitutional limitations. State ex rel. v. Neosho, 203 Mo. 40; Bell v. City of Fayette, 28 S.W.2d 356; Hight v. City of Harrisonville, 41 S.W.2d 155. (3) The fact that the obligation is payable out of the income of a preexisting plant does not change the rule. Bell v. City of Fayette, supra; Hight v. City of Harrisonville, supra; Shelton v. Los Angeles, 275 P. 421; Shields v. City of Loveland, 218 P. 913; Searle v. Town of Haxtun, 271 P. 629; Johnson v. City of Stuart, 226 N.W. 164; Bowling Green v. Kirby, 295 S.W. 1004; Jones v. City of Corbin, 13 S.W.2d 1013; Carr v. Fenstermacher, 228 N.W. 114; Brackenbrough v. Board of Commissioners, 46 S.E. 228; Lang v. City of Cavalier, 228 N.W. 819; McClain v. Regents University, 65 P. 412; Sowell v. Griffin, 294 S.W. 521; Barnes v. Lehi City, 279 P. 878; Winston v. Spokane, 41 P. 888; Faulkner v. Seattle, 53 P. 365; Griffin v. Tacoma, 95 P. 1107; Twichel v. Seattle, 179 P. 127; Butler v. Ashland, 232 P. 655; Ward v. Chicago, 173 N.E. 810; Maffitt v. Decatur, 152 N.E. 602. (4) Obligations to pay for municipal services rendered over a term of years are not within the constitutional provisions. Saleno v. Neosho, 127 Mo. 627; Lamar Water & Light Co. v. Lamar, 128 Mo. 188, 140 Mo. 145; Neosho City Water Co. v. Neosho, 136 Mo. 498; Chicago v. Galpin, 103 Ill. 399. (a) The case of Hight v. City of Harrisonville, 41 S.W.2d 155, is not controlling on this question because of a difference in facts. (b) The provision of the contract requiring the city to contribute to the light fund for services to itself is separable. Sexton v. North Mo. Central Ry. Co., 194 S.W. 1083; State ex inf. Chaney v. West Mo. Power Co., 313 Mo. 283; Gelpcke v. City of Dubuque, 1 Wall. 221; Ill. Trust & Savings Bank v. Arkansas City, 76 F. 271 (8). (5) The contract is valid as to miscellaneous objections raised against it. (a) Tort liability is not within constitutional limitations. State ex rel. v. Neosho, 203 Mo. 40. (b) Purely contingent obligations are not debts. Saleno v. Neosho, 127 Mo. 627; Lamar Water & Light Co. v. Lamar, 128 Mo. 188, 140 Mo. 145.
Ferguson, C. Sturgis and Hyde, CC., concur.
The plaintiff, as a citizen and taxpayer of the city of Salem, brought this suit seeking to have declared invalid and to enjoin the performance of, a contract entered into between said city and Fairbanks, Morse and Company, a corporation, whereby the city of Salem undertook to purchase from that company two engines and other equipment and machinery for use in a municipal electric plant.
Salem is a city of the fourth class. On April 2, 1929, at a special election, duly called and held, a proposition was submitted to, and adopted and approved by, the voters of Salem "to increase the indebtedness of said city in the sum of twenty-five thousand ($ 25,000) dollars for the purpose of erecting and constructing an electric light plant and to authorize the Board of Aldermen to borrow the said sum for this purpose and issue bonds therefor." The bonds were duly issued and sold. Including these bonds the bonded indebtedness of the city then aggregated $ 125,000. The assessed valuation of taxable property within the city for the year 1928 was $ 1,290,936, and for the year 1927, $ 1,275,365. Thus the bonded indebtedness closely approached the maximum amount permitted. [Constitution of Missouri, Art. 10, Secs. 12 and 78A.] The entire proceeds of the twentyfive thousand dollar bond issue were used in the purchase of a site and the erection thereon of a building to house the electrical machinery and appliances and the construction of a distribution system. By authority of an ordinance duly enacted by the board of aldermen a contract of date of June 1, 1929, was made and entered into between the city and Fairbanks, Morse and Company whereby the city purchased from that company two complete engine and alternator units and auxiliary equipment for use in such electrical plant to be delivered and installed within the time and in the manner specified in the contract. The contract provides for certain tests and makes certain guarantees as to performance, material and workmanship. The contract then fixes the purchase price of the machinery at $ 60,944.40, which the city agrees to pay in the following manner:
The contract contains the following proviso as to title and ownership of the machinery:
A requirement for insurance against loss or damage by fire is made which together with other provisions, not deemed pertinent, we omit. Pursuant to this contract the machinery was delivered and installed and the city issued and delivered the pledge orders, provided for by the contract, payable, to the order of Fairbanks, Morse and Company, monthly, in the amounts specified in the contract. These pledge orders were drawn upon and made payable "solely from" the special fund which the contract required the city to create and maintain.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Arkansas-Missouri Power Corp. v. City of Kennett
... ... City of ... Campbell v. Arkansas-Missouri Power Co., 55 F.2d 560; ... Hight v. Harrisonville, 328 Mo. 549, 41 S.W.2d 155; ... Hagler v. City of Salem, 333 Mo. 330, 62 S.W.2d 751; ... Kolb v. Golden Rule Baking Co., 9 S.W.2d l. c. 842; ... Hillside Securities Co. v. Minter, ... ...
-
Grossman v. Public Water Supply Dist. No. 1 of Clay County
... ... district of territory lying in the corporate limits of a city ... is germane to the subject matter set forth in the title ... State ex rel. Webster Groves ... v. Smith, 335 Mo. 825, 74 S.W.2d 367; Hight v ... Harrisonville, 328 Mo. 549; Hagler v. Salem, ... 333 Mo. 330, 62 S.W.2d 754; Sager v. Stanberry, 78 ... S.W.2d 431; State ex ... ...
-
Sager v. City of Stanberry
... ... taxation or from a fund which must be replenished by ... taxation. Hight v. Harrisonville, 328 Mo. 549, 41 ... S.W.2d 155; Hagler v. Salem, 62 S.W.2d 751; City ... of Campbell v. Arkansas-Missouri Power Co., 55 F.2d 560 ... The contract was not a lease, but in fact a ... ...
-
De Mayo v. Lyons
... ... 1939; Rules and Regulations of the ... Supervisor, Department of Liquor Control, Jefferson City, ... Mo., Regulations No. 2(g) and 3(a). (3) By reason of the ... illegality of the partnership ... unenforcible even if pleaded and established by the evidence ... Hagler v. City of Salem, 333 Mo. 330, 62 S.W.2d 751; ... Northcutt v. McKibben, 236 Mo.App. 605, 159 ... ...