Joint Sch. Dist. No. 132 v. Dabney
Decision Date | 25 October 1927 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 18497 |
Citation | 260 P. 486,1927 OK 376,127 Okla. 234 |
Parties | JOINT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 132 et al. v. DABNEY, Atty Gen. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Municipal Corporations--Construction, of Serial Bond Act of 1927--"Municipalities" and "Municipal Corporation."
Under the provisions of Senate Bill 87, chapter 22, Session Laws 1927, the term "municipalities," as used in the title of said act, and the term "municipal corporation," as used in section 1 thereof, apply to every kind and character of public corporations which are created by statute or the Constitution of the state and which are dependent for their support and maintenance upon taxes imposed and collected.
2. Schools and School Districts--Held "Municipal Corporations" Subject to Serial Bond Act of 1927.
By virtue of section 10337, C. O. S. 1921, school districts of the state are made bodies corporate, and as such they are municipal corporations and are subject to the provisions of Senate Bill 87, chapter 22, Session Laws 1927, relating to the issuance and sale of bonds.
3. Municipal Corporations--Serial Bond Act Not in Conflict With Constitutional Provision as to Public Utility Bonds.
The provisions of Senate Bill 87, chapter 22, Session Laws 1927, in no manner conflict with section 27, art. 10, of the Constitution of the state, relating to public utility bonds.
4. Same--Basis for Bidding on Bonds Under Serial Bond Act of 1927.
A serial bond, under chapter 22, Session Laws 1927 providing for the issuance of such bond by municipalities, is in contemplation of said act a loan of money by the holders of such bond to the corporate body issuing the same, and under section 2 of said act the margin of difference from those offering to purchase such bonds is the rate of interest proposed to be charged for the loan of money by the respective bidders. Said provision in said act is plain, simple, adequate, and free from ambiguity.
5. Statutes--Subjects and Titles--Subject-Matter of Section 3 of Serial Bond Act of 1927 Included in Title.
Section 3, ch. 22. Session Laws 1927, forbids all persons, firms, and corporations who participated in the proceedings authorizing the issuance of such bonds from buying the bonds so issued. This provision of the act is related and cognate to its general title and the purposes of said act; however, section 3 thereof is specifically authorized in the title of said act by the use of the words "and prohibiting any bidder from being interested in a proceedings contract."
Original proceedings in Supreme Court by Joint School District No. 132 in Major and Alfalfa Counties et al. for writ of mandamus to compel Edwin Dabney, Attorney General, as Ex Officio Bond Commissioner, to approve certain bonds. Writ denied.
Warren K. Snyder, for plaintiffs.
Randell S. Cobb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.
¶1 This is an original action brought in this court to compel by a writ of mandamus the Attorney General, as ex officio bond commissioner of the state of Oklahoma, to approve a certain bond issue in the sum of $ 2,000, authorized by the voters of the joint school district No. 132, located in the counties of Major and Alfalfa, state of Oklahoma.
¶2 The refusal and the reasons given therefor by the defendant to approve said bond issue are shown from a copy of the following letter, which is made a part of the defendant's answer to the petition of the plaintiffs:
¶3 The plaintiffs in this case have filed an able and exhaustive brief in which plaintiffs level several specific attacks against the constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 87, chapter 22, S. L. 1927, and commonly referred to as the "Serial Bond Act."
¶4 The defendant, as Attorney General of the state, relies upon section 1 of said act as the basis of his refusal to approve said bond issue.
¶5 We shall undertake to discuss every proposition presented by the plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of the said act.
¶6 The plaintiffs contend that neither the title to said act nor section 1 thereof is sufficient to embrace or include school districts so as to bring such organizations within the term of municipal corporation; the title to said act being as follows:
"An act providing that all bonds including funding and refunding bonds issued by municipalities shall be made to mature in annual installments beginning not less than three years nor more than five years from their date; prescribing certain regulations as to the amounts and denominations thereof; regulating the sale of bonds and requiring all bond issues aggregating five thousand ($ 5,000) dollars, or more, to be sold at an advertised sale to the bidder who will pay par and accrued interest for the lowest interest rate bond; prohibiting any person preparing bonding proceedings for compensation from bidding for the bonds, and prohibiting any bidder from being interested in a proceedings contract; and repealing all acts in conflict herewith, and declaring an emergency."
¶7 Section 1 of said act is as follows:
¶8 We are here confronted with the propositions whether the term "municipality," as used in the title, or "municipal corporation," as used in section 1 of said act, is sufficiently comprehensive to include school districts of this state within the meaning of said terms.
¶9 The plaintiffs in their brief, at page 38, say:
"We are aware that there are some decisions on this question of municipalities on the other side of the question and opposed to our contention, just the same as will be found on nearly every legal question or phase--two sides of decisions, two kinds of decisions--for and against."
¶10 In 35 Cyc. 831, it is said:
¶11 In 43 C. J., p. 73, sec. 12, is to be found this statement:
¶12 Section 10337, C. O. S. 1921, relating to the organization and corporate powers of school districts, reads as follows:
"Every school district organized in pursuance of this article shall be a body corporate, and shall possess the usual powers of a corporation for public purposes by the name and style of school district * * * (such a number as may be designated by the county superintendent of public instruction) * * * county (the name of the county in which the district is situated), state of Oklahoma, and in that name may sue and be sued, and be capable of contracting and being contracted with and holding such real and personal estate as it may come into possession of by will or otherwise, or as is authorized."
¶13 So, we here find created by the statute of this state an organization of a body corporate possessing "the usual powers of a corporation for public purposes." Of course their powers are limited by implication as well as by statute to the particular duties and powers extended to school districts. So it may also be said that the powers of cities and towns are also limited in their government, laws and statutes, in that they must be conformable to and not in conflict with the Constitution and laws of this state. And this is true even as to the cities of this state operating under a charter of their own adoption.
¶14 We understand, of course, that the early conception of municipal government was that it related to the government of the cities, towns, and villages, but this term...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Idaho Gold Dredging Company v. Balderston
... ... Davey, 27 Ariz. 254, 232 P. 884; Joint School Dist. No ... 132 v. Dabney, 127 Okla. 234, 260 P ... ...
-
Nordman v. Sch. Dist. No. 43 of Choctaw Cnty.
... ... v. Ward, 120 Okla. 11, 249 P. 916; Tiger v. Brown, 130 Okla. 83, 265 P. 124; Sommers v. Heiny, 132 Okla. 237, 270 P. 28; Hartzell v. Choctaw Lbr. Co., 163 Okla. 240, 22 P.2d 387; Raymer v. Comley ... Section 6784, O. S. 1931, 70 O. S. A. 64; Joint School District v. Dabney, 127 Okla. 234, 260 P. 486. Like other municipal corporations, rules of ... ...
-
Louis-S. F. Ry. Co. v. Comanche Cnty. (In re Street)
... ... T. Miller, for protestant.Edwin Dabney, Atty. Gen., V. P. Crowe, Asst. Atty. Gen., John W. Tyree, ... are cited with approval by this court in the case of Joint School District 132 et al. v. Dabney, Attorney General, 127 ... ...
- Joint School Dist. No. 132 in Major County and Alfalfa County v. Dabney