Hubbard v. Board of Com'rs of Bannock County

• Decision Date: 24 February 1948
• Docket Number: 7397
• Citation: 68 Idaho 141,190 P.2d 685
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: HUBBARD et al. v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF BANNOCK COUNTY et al

190 P.2d 685

68 Idaho 141

HUBBARD et al. v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF BANNOCK COUNTY et al

No. 7397

Supreme Court of Idaho

February 24, 1948

Appeal from District Court, Fifth District, Bannock County; Isaac McDougall, Judge.

Affirmed.

B. A McDevitt, of Pocatello, for appellants.

The limitation contained in Sec. 30-3301, I.C.A., is a limitation not only upon the levying of taxes, but upon bonds as well. The sole authority for issuing hospital bonds by the county within the State of Idaho is granted by Sec. 30-3301, I.C.A as amended by Chapter 66 of the 1941 Session Laws.

Sec 30-3302, I.C.A., provides for the issuance of bonds and the retirement thereof and as amended by the 1945 Session Laws provides for the retirement of bonds as provided in the municipal bond law and other bond provisions of the State of Idaho, substantially the same as was originally provided in the section when enacted in 1921 along with 30-3301. The law applicable provides that a limitation upon a levy carries through with it constituting restriction against the issue of bonds requiring an amount to repay in excess of the limitation to pay them and their interest. Ruling Case Law Municipal Corporations, Secs. 312 and 313, 19 R.C.L., page 1019 et seq.; German Nat. Bank of Covington v. Covington, 164 Ky. 292, 175 S.W. 330, Ann.Cas.1917B, 189; Baker v. Rockdale County, 161 Ga. 245, 130 S.E. 684; Shelby County v. Provident Sav. Bank & Trust Co., 5 Cir., 54 F.2d 602; Bolton v. Wharton, 163 S.C. 242, 161 S.E. 454, 86 A.L.R. 1101.

H. F. McQuade, Pros. Atty., C. M. Jeffery, and Carl C. Christensen, all of Pocatello, for respondents.

The Board of County Commissioners of Bannock County has the power to issue bonds in the amount authorized by the taxpayers of the county who are qualified electors and voting in a bond election properly called and held. Art. 7, Sec. 15, Idaho Constitution; Art. 8, Sec. 3, Idaho Constitution; Chap. 116, Idaho Session Laws, 1945, amending Sec. 30-3302, I.C.A.; Garrity v. Board of Com'rs of Owyhee County, 54 Idaho 342, 34 P.2d 949; Bannock County v. Bunting, 4 Idaho 156, 37 P. 277; Ball v. Bannock County, 5 Idaho 602, 51 P. 454; Mittry v. Bonneville County, 38 Idaho 306, 222 P. 292.

All statutes relating to the same subject or having the same general purpose should be read in connection with each other, as together constituting one law. Barton v. Moscow Independent School Dist. No. 5, 3 Idaho 270, 29 P. 43; Achenbach v. Kincaid, 25 Idaho 768, 140 P. 529; Lloyd Corp. v. Bannock County, 53 Idaho 478, 25 P.2d 217; Meyers v. City of Idaho Falls, 52 Idaho 81, 11 P.2d 626; In re Rothchild's Estate, 48 Idaho 485, 283 P. 598; 59 C.J. 1043-46.

Givens, Chief Justice. Budge, Holden, Miller, and Hyatt, JJ., concur.

OPINION

Givens, Chief Justice.

Bannock County by a duly called and regularly held election, authorized a million-dollar bond issue to provide a hospital, hospital grounds and other necessary buildings and equipment, consisting of a main hospital at Pocatello for $ 900,000 and two receiving hospitals, one at Downey and one at Grace, for $ 50,000 each.

Appellants insist Section 30-3301, I.C.A., ^[1] as amended by Chapter 66, S.L.1941, p. 127, limits the amount of such bonds that may be issued under Section 30-3302, I.C.A., ^[2] as providing the only interest and sinking fund retirement therefor and that the levy thereby authorized on the assessed valuation of Bannock County of $ 28,000,000 would only raise $ 42,000 -- insufficient to pay the interest and retire the principal in twenty years.

Upon demurrer and stipulation, the trial court correctly held Section 30-3301, I.C.A. was not a limitation on Section 30-3302, I.C.A., because, first; Section 30-3301, I.C.A., does not by express terms limit bonds issued under Section 30-3302, I.C.A. Second; the last paragraph in Section 30-3302, I.C.A., the only connecting link between the two Sections -- though providing that funds derived from the levy under Section 30-3301, I.C.A., are to go into the bond sinking fund -- does not provide that such contribution is the exclusive method for the payment of such bonds, which is significant and under similar circumstances held to be controlling. Lloyd Corporation v. Bannock County, 53 Idaho 478, at page 485, 25 P.2d 217. Third; Section 30-3301, I.C.A., does not by implication limit the amount of bonds authorized by Section 30-3302, I.C.A., State v. Robb, 143 Kan. 527, 55 P.2d 815. Fourth; such last paragraph in Section 30-3302, I.C.A. was eliminated therefrom by the amendment thereof, Chapter 116, S.L.1945, p. 179, in force when the bonds were voted. Fifth; appellants' construction of Section 30-3301, I.C.A., would make it out of harmony, if not in conflict, with Section 55-211, I.C.A., ^[3] made applicable to such bond issue by the 1945 amendment of Section 30-3302, I.C.A.

Appellants argue if Section 30-3301, I.C.A., is not held to be a limitation, it is meaningless and there is no limit to the amount of such a bond issue. In the first place, Section 30-3301, I.C.A., does not have to be construed as a limitation to have meaning, because it provides for an annual levy for the furnishing, upkeep, etc. of a hospital and likewise, if sufficient, could be used to provide for a hospital. Second; no provision of the Constitution or statute has been called to our attention which places a limitation upon the amount of bonds that may be voted by a county for hospital purposes.

Only one "purpose," though including three units or structures, was in the call for the election, thus complying with Article VIII, Section 3 of the Idaho Constitution. Independent Highway Dist. No. 2 of Ada County v. Ada County, 24 Idaho 416, 134 P. 542; Baker v. Gooding County, 25 Idaho 506, 138 P. 342; Howard v. Independent School Dist. No. 1, 17 Idaho 537, 106 P. 692; Forward et al. v. San Diego County et al., 190 Cal. 202, 211 P. 458; Dancy v. Davidson, Tex.Civ.App., 183 S.W.2d 195.

Section 30-3301, I.C.A., is, therefore, not a bar to the issuance and negotiation of the bonds heretofore voted by the citizens of Bannock County, and the judgment is affirmed. Costs awarded to respondents.

BUDGE, HOLDEN, MILLER, and HYATT, JJ., concur.

---------

Notes:

^[1] "The boards of county commissioners in their respective counties shall have the jurisdiction and power under such limitations and restrictions as are prescribed by law.

"(1) To care for and maintain the indigent sick or otherwise dependent poor of the county and for this purpose said boards are authorized to levy an ad valorem tax not...