Lewis v. Tate

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Holt, J.
• Citation: Lewis v. Tate, 197 S.W.2d 23, 210 Ark. 594 (Ark. 1946)
• Decision Date: 04 November 1946
• Docket Number: 4-8104
• Parties: Lewis v. Tate, Mayor

197 S.W.2d 23

210 Ark. 594

Lewis v. Tate, Mayor

No. 4-8104

Supreme Court of Arkansas

November 4, 1946

Appeal from Crawford Chancery Court; C. M. Wofford, Chancellor.

Affirmed.

Creekmore & Robinson, for appellant.

Batchelor & Batchelor, for appellee.

OPINION

Holt J.

This action was brought by appellant, Harley Lewis against the mayor, recorder and members of the City Council of Mulberry, Ark. The allegations of his complaint were "That he is a qualified elector of the City of Mulberry, Arkansas, is the owner of property within the corporate limits of said municipality, and is a taxpayer therein, and that he brings this suit on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated.

"By action of the State Board of Municipal Incorporations taken on November 15, 1945, as a result of an election held in Mulberry, the municipality was raised from an incorporated town to a city of the second class, and later it completed its organization by the election of the present officers and city council; that this occurred prior to July 19, 1946.

"That Mulberry does not have a general sewer system, but the council has ascertained and declared that there is a need for a comprehensive sewer system, but the cost of the system cannot be financed exclusively either by revenue bonds or by bonds issued under the terms of Amendment No. 13 to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, and the city council has formed the plan of financing the cost of this sewer system by issuing a series of revenue bonds, to be supplemented by a series of $ 14,000 in bonds issued under authority of Amendment No. 13. Pursuant to this plan, the city council on July 19, 1946, passed Ordinance No. 88, calling a special election in the city to submit the question of the bond issue and a tax to pay the bonds and interest, this election to be held on August 27, 1946. A copy of Ordinance No. 88 is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" to this complaint.

"It is admitted that Ordinance No. 88 was duly passed and that both the ordinance and the form of the notice of the election comply with the provisions of said Amendment No. 13; that the ballot was in proper form, the election was held and conducted, the vote canvassed, and the result declared under the law and in the manner provided for municipal elections, and the mayor on August 28, 1946, issued a proclamation showing that the election resulted in 121 votes for the bonds and for the tax, and 23 votes against the bonds and against the tax.

"Plaintiff alleges that the election is void for the reason that the notice of election was not given as required by Amendment No. 13, which expressly provides that the notice shall be by advertisement weekly for at least four times in some newspaper published in said municipality and having a bona fide circulation therein, the last publication to be not less than ten days prior to the date of the election. In the effort to comply with this provision, and in the absence of a newspaper published in Mulberry, the defendants published the notice of the special election in the "Mulberry" section of The Press-Argus, a weekly newspaper published in the near-by city of Van Buren, which is in the same county; that this notice appeared in the issues of July 26, August 2, 9, and 16, 1946, and there is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" to this complaint the upper half of page No. 4 of the issue of Friday, August 9, 1946, which shows the heading of the "Mulberry" section under which the special correspondent has collected news items about the City of Mulberry and its people, and in this section the notice appears. In addition to the publication in the newspaper, the defendants attempted to comply with the terms of the amendment by posting an identical notice to that published, in ten or more of the most public places in the city, more than thirty days before the date set for the election, and it is admitted that the inhabitants of Mulberry were fully advised of the election, as is evidenced by the very substantial vote for and against the proposals.

"Plaintiff further alleges that unless restrained by this court, the defendants propose to proceed under § 6 of Ordinance No. 88 to advertise a public sale of the bonds, and they will make a sale of the bonds, with the result that the city will be involved in expensive, prolonged litigation, its credit will be damaged, and the taxpayers will be subjected to needless and illegal expenditure of public funds.

"Wherefore, the plaintiff prays an order of this court permanently restraining the defendants from proceeding any further with their attempt to issue the proposed $ 14,000 in bonds under the authority of Amendment No. 13, and that he have his costs herein expended and all other proper relief."

Ordinance No. 88, Exhibit "A," made a part of the complaint provides in § 4: "Because no newspaper is published in the City of Mulberry, Arkansas, the mayor of said city is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of the special election by an advertisement published weekly, once a week for four times in the Van Buren Press-Argus, a...