Hall v. Montgomery County Fiscal Court

• Decision Date: 15 November 1921
• Citation: 234 S.W. 274,192 Ky. 716
• Parties: HALL v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY FISCAL COURT ET AL.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

234 S.W. 274

192 Ky. 716

HALL v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY FISCAL COURT ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

November 15, 1921

Action by Rex Hall against the Montgomery County Fiscal Court and others. On plaintiff's motion for an injunction. Motion overruled.

Robert H. Winn, of Mt. Sterling, for plaintiff.

W. B White and W. A. Samuels, both of Mt. Sterling, for defendants.

SETTLE J.

The temporary injunction refused the plaintiff in this action by the Montgomery circuit court, and which upon his motion I as a judge of the Kentucky Court of Appeals am asked to grant or order the judge of the circuit court to grant, would, if issued, restrain the issuance and sale by the defendant Montgomery county fiscal court, of the whole or any part of certain bonds of Montgomery county, limited in aggregate amount to $250,000, which at an election duly held May 28 1921, and by more than the required majority of the votes therein legally cast, it was determined by the citizens of that county should be issued and sold, as needed for the construction and reconstruction of public roads and bridges therein.

The petition admits that the election in question was legally ordered, advertised, and held, and that it resulted as already stated, but attacks the validity of the election, and denies authority on the part of the fiscal court to issue or sell the bonds, because of an alleged condition imposed by an order of that court, made after the entering of the order calling the election, but two weeks before it was held, which in effect provides that the money to be realized from the sale of the bonds shall not be spent in the construction of any road at the cost of the county alone. Hence it is argued that if neither federal nor state governmental aid is furnished, the money could not be expended; and in such event a sale of the bonds by the fiscal court would be unnecessary and unauthorized. The order referred to, after declaring it fair that the voters of the county should be advised before the election as to the roads upon which the proceeds of the bonds would be expended, naming such roads and designating for first construction or reconstruction out of the bond proceeds three of the roads named which already had been made a part of the state's primary system of highways and assured of federal and state aid, proceeds as follows:

"Where as with such state and federal aid on said named roads, and on any other roads that may hereafter be designated as state and federal aid roads or either, this court is of the opinion that a fair system of roads can be built in this county. Now, be it resolved by this court that this court will from the proceeds of the bonds aforesaid, expend such portions of same as may be required on said three named roads in conjunction with state or federal or private aid, or all, and on such other roads as may from time to time be the beneficiaries of such state or federal or private aids, or all, and not otherwise; but it is distinctly reserved, excepted and provided that under no condition or circumstances shall the proceeds or any part of same, of the bonds aforesaid, if voted, be used otherwise than to pay for not exceeding twenty-five per cent. of the total cost of such building, constructing or reconstructing."

It is plain from its recital of the fact that the order was made to enable the voters of the county to understand, in advance of casting their votes in the approaching election, the course that would be pursued by the fiscal court, in case of an affirmative vote, in expending the money arising from the sale of the bonds; and it is admitted...