Moyle v. Board of Com'rs of Salt Lake County
| Decision Date | 05 February 1919 |
| Docket Number | 3331 |
| Citation | 178 P. 918,53 Utah 352 |
| Parties | MOYLE v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF SALT LAKE COUNTY et al |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Application by Frank Moyle for prohibition against the Board of County Commissioners of Salt Lake County, and C. F Stillman and others as members of the Board of County Commissioners of Salt Lake County.
WRIT DENIED.
Ray Van Cott for plaintiff.
Richard Hartley, Co. Atty., and D. A. Skeen, Asst. Co. Atty., (C. C Dey of counsel) for defendants.
The plaintiff, as a taxpayer and elector of Salt Lake County, filed an application in this court for a writ of prohibition against the board of county commissioners of Salt Lake County and the individual members thereof, hereinafter called defendants, to prohibit them from holding a special election which has been called for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of said county the proposition whether certain bonds shall be issued, and whether the proceeds thereof shall be devoted to the construction, improvement, repair, and maintenance of certain specified public roads in said county, and the necessary culverts and bridges thereon. An alternative writ was duly issued, and the defendants have appeared and have filed what they designate an answer, which, however, in legal effect, is a general demurrer, and was so treated at the hearing, and we shall continue to so treat it.
The application of plaintiff, stated in condensed form, is based upon substantially the following grounds: (1) That there is no law authorizing the issuance of bonds for the contemplated purpose, and hence the defendants have no power to call an election for that purpose; (2) that the defendants have no legal authority to construct, pave, macadamize, or gravel roads within the county except by creating special road districts, and by following the provisions of Comp. Laws Utah 1917, sections 2830, 2831, et seq.; (3) that the notice of the contemplated election is fatally defective in that it fails to state the character of the contemplated improvement and fails to designate the polling places and the names of the election judges, and, further, that the notice is void for uncertainty; and (4) that the defendants have no authority to issue bonds at the rate of interest stated in the notice.
The foregoing propositions were fully and ably argued at the hearing by counsel for both sides. In view of the different provisions of our statutes, the oral arguments as well as counsel's briefs have been of much assistance to us in arriving at what we deem to be a just conclusion. We shall consider the legal propositions outlined above in the order in which they are stated.
First, respecting the jurisdiction or power of the defendants, while acting as a board of county commissioners, to construct, macadamize, maintain, and gravel public roads within the county outside of incorporated cities and towns, and their jurisdiction or power to issue bonds of the county, and to sell them and use the proceeds thereof for that purpose.
Comp. Laws Utah 1917, section 1400x1, provides that "the board of county commissioners in each county has jurisdiction and power * * * to divide the county into precincts and into road, sanitary and other districts required by law; to change the same and create others, as convenience requires."
By section 1400x24 of the same compilation, such boards are given jurisdiction and power "to lay out, maintain, control, erect, and manage public roads, turnpikes, ferries, and bridges within the county outside of incorporated cities."
And by section 1400x27 "to enact all laws, ordinances, and regulations not in conflict with the laws of the state for the control, construction, alteration, repair, and use of all public roads and highways in the county outside of incorporated cities, and for the prevention of the waste of water flowing from artesian wells in the county."
There are other cognate provisions, which it is not necessary to set forth here.
In view of the foregoing explicit provisions, we deem it unnecessary to enter upon an extended argument to show that the defendants have complete jurisdiction and power to construct, improve, and maintain all public roads in the county outside of incorporated cities and towns.
It is, however, also contended that defendants are without jurisdiction or power to call an election to vote bonds for the purposes aforesaid, and are without power or jurisdiction to issue and sell bonds and to devote the proceeds thereof for such purposes. Comp. Laws Utah 1917, section 1414, so far as material here, provides:
It is also provided in said section that the money derived from the sale of the bonds must be applied for the purpose or purposes specified, and for no other. Section 1410, which is referred to in the foregoing section, merely authorizes the issuance of refunding bonds.
Section 1414 thus confers full and complete power and authority upon the county commissioners of the several counties of this state to "contract a bonded indebtedness," which necessarily implies that they may issue the bonds of the county evidencing such indebtedness if done pursuant to the provisions of that section. There is no limitation in that section except that no bonds shall be issued unless authorized by a majority of the qualified electors of the county at a general or special election. There is, however, a limitation which is necessarily implied which is that such a bonded indebtedness cannot be created except for a legitimate county purpose. In view, therefore, of the sweeping language authorizing the creation of a bonded indebtedness, the only judicial question is what constitutes a county purpose.
If, therefore, the purpose for which the bonded indebtedness is sought to be created is in fact and in law a county purpose, the courts cannot interfere. This court in a very recent case has held that the "construction, maintenance, and repair of county roads is a county purpose." Los Angeles & S. L. R. Co. v. Richards, 52 Utah 1, 172 P. 474. We entertain no doubt respecting the correctness of that conclusion, and to that effect are the authorities. See Independent District v. Ada County, 24 Idaho 416, 134 P. 542; Johnson v. Williams, 153 Cal. 368, 95 P. 655.
In view of...
To continue reading
Request your trial