Miller v. Merriam
| Decision Date | 04 April 1895 |
| Citation | 94 Iowa 126,62 N.W. 689 |
| Parties | MILLER ET AL. v. MERRIAM ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Delaware county; John J. Ney, Judge.
Action in equity to have declared void a special election held to determine whether a courthouse should be built, and to authorize the use of certain funds in building it, and to enjoin the defendants and their successors in office from adopting measures to build a courthouse, and from using money of the county for that purpose. There was a hearing on the merits, and a decree for the defendants. The plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.J. M. Brayton and A. A. House, for appellants.
Yoran & Arnold, Bronson & Carr, and Blair, Dunham & Norris, for appellees.
The pleadings and an agreement of the parties show the following facts: The plaintiffs are citizens and taxpayers of Delaware county, and bring this action for themselves and for the benefit of others interested in the questions involved. The defendants are members of the board of supervisors of Delaware county. At a session of this board held in June, 1893, a special election was ordered to be held in the county on the 22d day of the next August, on questions which were set out in the notice of election, of which the parts material for our consideration are as follows: An election was held at the time specified, and upon a canvass of the returns the board of supervisors declared the vote to be in favor of the questions submitted, the majority in favor of each having been more than 800. No vote was taken upon any question except those we have set out. The unexpended swamp-land fund belonging to Delaware county was $19,975, and at the time of the election there was in the county fund subject to the order of the board of supervisors for county purposes the sum of $21,500. The outstanding liabilities of the county did not exceed $1,000. It also appears that the average annual expenditures of the county funds for the last five years have been $35,000, and the expenditures from that fund since the election have not exceeded the collections for it. In September, 1893, the board of supervisors levied for the county fund, for one year, taxes which will amount to $36,000. The board of supervisors contemplates the erection of a courthouse, and intends to use for that purpose more than $5,000 of the county fund. The appellants contend that the board of supervisors has no legal right to expend more than $5,000 of the county fund in the erection of a courthouse without the submission of the question of levying a tax for that purpose to a vote of the people, and that this is true even though the money of that fund in the county treasury is sufficient for the erection of the building without the aid of a tax. Subdivision 24 of section 303 of the Code contains the following: “It shall not be competent for the board of supervisors to order the erection of a courthouse, jail, poor-house, or other building or bridge when the probable cost will exceed five thousand dollars, nor the purchase of real estate for county purposes exceeding two thousand dollars in value, until a proposition therefor shall have first been submitted to the legal voters of the county and voted for by a majority of all voting for and against such proposition at a general or special election. * * *” Under this provision the contemplated expenditure is illegal, unless it has been authorized by a vote of the electors of the county. Section 309 of the Code provides that the board of supervisors may submit to the people of the county the question whether money may be borrowed to aid in the erection of any public buildings, and certain other questions. Section 310 provides that the mode of submitting such questions to the people shall be the following: “The whole question, including the sum to be raised, or the amount of tax desired to be levied, or the rate per annum * * * shall be published at least four weeks in some newspaper printed in the county.” Section 311 is as follows: “When the question so submitted involves the borrowing or the expenditure of money, the proposition of the question must be accompanied by a provision to lay a tax for the payment thereof in addition to the usual taxes, as directed in the following section, and no vote adopting the question proposed will be of effect unless it adopt the tax also.”
It was considered in McMillan v. Boyles, 3 Iowa, 313, where it was held that to render valid a vote adopting a proposition for the county to subscribe for stock in a railway company it must be accompanied by a provision for levying a tax to pay the subscription. In Starr v. Board, 22 Iowa, 492, it appeared that the question of purchasing a hall for a courthouse had been submitted to the people, who had voted in favor of it, but that no proposition to levy a tax was submitted, and that there was not sufficient money in the treasury to pay the stipulated price. It was held that the proposition to purchase the property should have been accompanied by a proposition to levy a tax to pay for it in order to make the vote effectual. It will be noticed that in neither of the cases was the necessity for submitting to a vote of the people the question of levying a tax when it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial