Hearn v. Court of Com'rs of Blount County

• Decision Date: 19 June 1913
• Citation: 182 Ala. 392,62 So. 535
• Parties: HEARN v. COURT OF COM'RS OF BLOUNT COUNTY.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

62 So. 535

182 Ala. 392

HEARN v. COURT OF COM'RS OF BLOUNT COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 19, 1913

Appeal from Chancery Court, Blount County; A.H. Benners, Chancellor.

Bill by F.A. Hearn against the Court of County Commissioners of Blount County for an injunction to restrain the issuance of bonds. From a decree denying the injunction, complainant appeals. Affirmed.

O.A Steele, of Oneonta, for appellant.

W.A Weaver, of Oneonta, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

This bill by a taxpayer seeks injunctive process to restrain the issuance of $150,000 of bonds of the county of Blount to provide funds wherewith to construct public roads in that county. The statutory authority therefor is afforded by Code § 158 et seq.

Code, § 160, provides: "Notice of such election shall be given for thirty days by publication in a newspaper published in the county in which the election is to be held once a week for three successive weeks, which notice shall state *** the place for holding the same, the amount of the proposed bond issue, and the maximum rate of interest proposed to be paid and the time for which the bonds shall run, and the purpose for which the bonds are to be issued, and such notice shall be signed by the probate judge or chairman of the board of revenue of the county in which the election is to be held, and if no newspaper is published in the county, the notice must be posted in five public places in the county at least thirty days before the time of holding the election."

The order of the commissioners' court, in the premises, was made and entered March 3, 1913. Therein April 3, 1913, was fixed as the day upon which the election should be held. The prescribed character of notice of the election was published in the Southern Democrat, a weekly paper published in that county, three times, during three successive weeks; it first appearing in the issue of March 6, 1913, and the last appearing in the issue of March 20, 1913. The contention expressed in the bill is that the election held on April 3, 1913, was invalid for that the 30-day notice prescribed by Code, § 160, was not given. It is apparent that 30 days elapsed between the day on which the election was ordered and the day on which the election was held according to the order.

The particular point pressed by the complainant seems to be that the statute (section 160) requires 30 days' notice from the date of the first publication in the weekly paper. In other words, as applicable to the present matter, that the notice period must have begun not earlier than March 6, 1913, the day and date of the first publication.

The statute prescribes 30 days' notice of the election. The means or method for effecting that notice is also fully prescribed. Where there is a weekly paper published in the county in which the election...