Hughes v. Horsky

• Decision Date: 18 October 1909
• Citation: 122 N.W. 799,18 N.D. 474
• Parties: HUGHES et al. v. HORSKY et al.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

18 N.D. 474

122 N.W. 799

HUGHES et al.

v.HORSKY et al.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

June 30, 1909.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 18, 1909.

Syllabus by the Court.

Under a statute providing for an election on the question of issuing bonds for a courthouse or jail, or both, requiring the notice of such election to state its object, the amount of bonds to be issued, the denominations of such bonds, the length of time for which they shall run, and the rate of interest which they shall bear, an election held under a notice which failed to state the denominations of the bonds proposed to be issued, and the rate of interest which they were to bear, is invalid, and it is therefore illegal for the county officials to issue the bonds so voted.

Under a statute providing for the issuance of bonds for county buildings providing for the submission of the question of the issuance of bonds for a courthouse, or jail, or both, held, that when the erection of a courthouse and jail in one building is contemplated, and the notice so indicates, the question of issuing bonds may be submitted and voted upon as one question; but that when two separate buildings are planned, two questions are presented, and although they may be submitted in the same notice, it must be so done that each voter may vote for or against each proposition independently of the other.

Appeal from District Court, Pierce County; Goss, Judge, Presiding by Request.

Action by C. B. Hughes and others against Joseph Horsky and others, as Commissioners of Pierce County, and Pierce County. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

L. N. Torson, for appellants. A. M. Christianson and B. L. Shuman, for respondents.

SPALDING, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment against the plaintiffs and appellants, denying their demand that the county commissioners of Pierce county be restrained from issuing and negotiating certain bonds voted to be issued by said county at the November, 1908, general election, for the purpose of building a courthouse and jail in Pierce county. The first contention of appellants is that there was no sufficient notice given of the election held for the purpose of voting for or against the issuance of bonds for such purpose. Section 2565 of the Revised Codes of 1905, providing for elections on the issuance of bonds for county buildings requires: “Such election shall be held in the manner and upon the notice prescribed by law for other elections, but the published and posted notices of such election shall state its object, the amount of bonds to be issued, the denominations of such bonds and length of time for which they shall run and the rate of interest which they shall bear.” In the case at bar the notice of election on bonds was included in the notice of general election held on the 3d day of November, 1908, and so much of such notice of election as relates to the bond issue reads as follows: “Also to vote on the question of bonding the county of Pierce for $75,000 for a term of twenty years for the erection of a new courthouse and jail.” No extended discussion regarding the adequacy of this notice is necessary. We have just held, in the case of Stern v. City of Fargo, that a notice which did not definitely state the amount of the bonds proposed for issuance was inadequate. The same reasons there suggested for so holding are equally applicable in the case at bar. This notice was faulty in not stating the denominations of the bonds or the rate...