Pendleton v. Letcher County Fiscal Court

• Decision Date: 05 May 1922
• Citation: 194 Ky. 688,240 S.W. 358
• Parties: PENDLETON v. LETCHER COUNTY FISCAL COURT ET AL.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

240 S.W. 358

194 Ky. 688

PENDLETON v. LETCHER COUNTY FISCAL COURT ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 5, 1922

Appeal from Circuit Court, Letcher County.

Suit by F. F. Pendleton against Letcher County Fiscal Court and others to enjoin the issuance of road and bridge bonds. From a judgment denying the injunction and dismissing the petition, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

A. J Kirk, of Jenkins, and Robt. Blair, of Whitesburg, for appellant.

O'Rear & Fowler, of Frankfort, and Lewis E. Harvie, of Whitesburg for appellees.

MOORMAN J.

This appeal involves the validity of a proposed bond issue of $300,000 by Letcher county, the proceeds of which are to be used in constructing and reconstructing the public roads and bridges in that county. The validity of the issue is attacked on several grounds, all of which relate to section 4307 of Kentucky Statutes; it being contended by appellant that the proceedings with reference to the election at which the issue was authorized do not comply with that section of the Statutes.

In July, 1920, more than 150 legal voters, who were freeholders of Letcher county, filed their petition in the county court requesting the judge of that court to make proper orders for an election to be called in Letcher county to vote on the proposal to issue the bonds of the county, for the purpose of constructing and reconstructing the public roads and bridges. Thereafter, at a regular term of the Letcher county court the county judge made an order on his order book directing an election to be held in the county on November 2, 1920, more than 60 days after the application was filed, and directing the sheriff of the county to advertise the election for at least 30 days next before the day fixed. The election was held on the day designated and resulted in 2,547 voters casting their ballots in favor of the issue of the bonds and 407 voters casting their ballots against it. The returns were certified to the fiscal court, and that court proceeded to issue bonds in the sum of $300,000 according to the terms and conditions submitted to and approved by the voters of the county.

The first contention of appellant is that the calling of the election by the county judge was invalid, because the petition requesting it does not show that the signers were freeholders as required by section 4307 of the Statutes. It is true that the petition on its face, to which 400 names were signed, does not...