Johnson Cnty. Sav. Bank v. City of Creston

• Decision Date: 20 June 1931
• Docket Number: No. 39746.,39746.
• Citation: 212 Iowa 929,237 N.W. 507
• Parties: JOHNSON COUNTY SAV. BANK ET AL. v. CITY OF CRESTON.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

212 Iowa 929

237 N.W. 507

JOHNSON COUNTY SAV. BANK ET AL.

v.CITY OF CRESTON.

No. 39746.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 20, 1931.

Appeal from District Court, Union County; H. H. Carter, Judge.

Supplemental opinion on petition for rehearing substituted for former supplemental opinion on petition for rehearing. Johnson County Savings Bank et al. v. City of Creston, 234 N. W. 227.Kelly, Shuttleworth & McManus, of Des Moines, W. H. Bailey, of Iowa City, and R. Brown, of Creston, for appellants.

George A. Johnston and Kenneth H. Davenport, both of Creston, and O. M. Slaymaker, of Osceola, for appellee.

FAVILLE, C. J.

It is ordered that the supplemental opinion filed herein, January 13, 1931, be, and the same hereby is, withdrawn.

It is further ordered that the following language in the original opinion filed herein, June 23, 1930, to wit, “While the statute is not that the repairs shall be by contract, but says that ‘all contracts for the construction of street improvements' shall be let by competitive bidding, yet” (the same appearing in 231 Northwestern Reporter page 707, first column, near top) be, and the same hereby is, withdrawn, and the reporter is directed in reporting this case to eliminate from the opinion the language hereinabove quoted.

The petition for rehearing is overruled.

MORLING, J.

[1] Plaintiff's petition for rehearing revolves around the contention that section 6004, Code 1924, applies only to special assessment cases. Section 6004 is section 19 of the codifying act introduced into the Fortieth Extra Gen. Assem. as Code Commissioners' Bill or Senate file 169 entitled “A Bill for an Act to amend, revise and codify Sections 3835, 3844 * * *3877 * * *3896 * * * of the Compiled Code of Iowa and Sections 3849 * * * of the Supplement to said Code relating to municipal corporations.” A general analysis of the codifying act and amendments, and comparison with the next previous general statutory enactments embraced in the codifying sections as found in chapters 6 and 7, title 5 (sections 751-840), Code 1897, and amendments, and discussion of the general purpose and effect of Senate file 169, as now contained in chapter 308 (sections 5974-6066), Code 1927, is not now necessary. The specific question presented is whether section 19 of the codifying act as it was finally amended and adopted, and as now found in section 6004 of the Code of 1927, was intended by the Legislature to apply as the language reads, to “all contracts for the * * * repair of street improvements * * *” or to be limited to contracts for repair of street improvements to be paid for by special assessment. The effect, generally, of the codifying act upon the method by which such repairs are to be paid for need not now be discussed. As Senate file No. 169 was introduced into the General Assembly it did not require contracts for repairs to street improvements to be let on competitive bidding. Section 19 of the act, as originally introduced, provided “all contracts for the making or reconstruction of street improvements and sewers shall be let in the name of the city or town to the lowest bidder by sealed proposals upon giving notice. * * *” This was in substantial conformity with the then existing law, Compiled Code, 1919, § 3877, Code 1897, § 813. It was, however, provided by section 29 of the bill, as introduced, “the cost, or any part thereof of the repair of any street improvement may be paid from the improvement fund or the general revenue.” The bill, therefore, in its relation to repairs of street improvements, as it was under consideration in the Legislature, was not restricted to repairs to be paid for from the proceeds of special assessments. The act comprehended the payment for repairs from the improvement fund or the general revenue. The Senate committee reported numerous amendments to Senate file 169 among which were the preliminary definition, “The word ‘repair’ shall include reconstruct and resurface,” (Code 1927, § 5974, subd. 2) and the striking from sections 17 and 19 of the words “making or reconstruction,” and substituting therefor the words “construction or repair.” (Code 1927, §§ 6001, 6004, Senate Journal February 22, 1924, 738, 740.) These amendments were adopted (Id., 840, 841), as...