Miller v. City of Pineville

• Citation: 121 Ky. 211,89 S.W. 261
• Parties: MILLER v. CITY OF PINEVILLE et al.
• Decision Date: 13 October 1905
• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky

89 S.W. 261

121 Ky. 211

MILLER v. CITY OF PINEVILLE et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 13, 1905

Appeal from Circuit Court, Bell County.

"To be officially reported."

Action by M. P. Miller against the city of Pineville and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Weller & Points, for appellant.

Wm. Low and W. O. Harris, for appellee T. J. Asher. N. B. Hays and Hazelrigg & Hazelrigg, for appellees T. J. and A. J. Asher. J. W. Alcorn, for appellee Louisville & Nashville R. Co.

PAYNTER J.

M. P Miller sues as a taxpayer. Pineville is a city of the fourth class. It issued bonds for street improvements. The trustees of the school district (the district being co-extensive with the boundary of Pineville) issued bonds for the purpose of building a schoolhouse. The proceeds of the bonds were used for the purposes for which they were intended. After issuing the bonds under section 3483, Ky. St. 1903, the city limits were reduced. The question involved in this case is whether the property which was within the corporate limits of the city of Pineville at the time the bonds were issued, and which is now outside of the city limits by reason of the proceedings under section 3483, Ky. St. 1903, can be assessed and made to pay taxes for the purpose of aiding in paying the bonds.

Neither the organic nor the statutory law of the state provides that the property within the territory stricken from cities of the fourth class shall be required to pay any taxes, to the municipality for any purpose. Municipalities are arms of the state government.

Their charters are granted by the Legislature. The right to grant the charters implies the right to alter, change, or amend them. If too much territory is embraced within the limits of a city, the right to reduce it or to prescribe the manner of doing it is vested in the authority which created it. In speaking of the control of Legislatures over municipalities it is said in Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 266 "The creation of municipal corporations, and the conferring upon them of certain powers, and subjecting them to corresponding duties, does not deprive the Legislature of the state of that general control over their citizens which was before possessed. It still has authority to amend their charters, enlarge or diminish their powers, extend or limit their boundaries, consolidate two or more into one, overrule their legislative action whenever it is deemed unwise impolitic, or unjust, and even abolish them altogether in the legislative discretion, and substitute those which are different. The rights and franchises of such a corporation being granted for the purposes of government, can never become such vested rights as against the state that they cannot be taken away; nor does the charter constitute a contract in the sense of the constitutional provision which prohibits the...