Roy v. City of Lafayette

Decision Date08 July 1929
Docket Number30008
Citation123 So. 720,168 La. 1081
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court
PartiesROY et al. v. CITY OF LAFAYETTE

Appeal from Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafayette W. W. Bailey, Judge.

Suit by Wartelle Roy and others against the City of Lafayette. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff's appeal.

Affirmed.

Debaillon & Meaux, of Lafayette, for appellants.

George P. Lessley, of Lafayette, for appellee.

Frank E. Powell, of DeRidder, amicus curiae.

LAND J. O'NIELL, C. J., dissents.

OPINION

LAND, J.

Plaintiffs are resident taxpayers and qualified electors of the city of Lafayette in this state.

In the present suit plaintiffs seek to enjoin that municipality, through its board of trustees, from issuing and delivering certain bonds to the Commercial National Bank of Lafayette, the highest bidder, and to have declared null and void all of the proceedings had for calling and holding the special election at which these bonds were authorized, including the issuance and sale of the bonds to the bank.

From a judgment rejecting their demands, plaintiffs have appealed.

On November 19, 1928, the board of trustees of the city of Lafayette adopted an ordinance ordering a special election in that city on December 28, 1928, for the purpose of submitting to the property taxpayers and qualified electors the question of issuing $ 100,000 of bonds for the purpose of readjusting, refunding, extending, and unifying certain outstanding indebtedness existing prior to May 1, 1928; the payment of the principal and interest of the refunding bonds to be secured by the pledge of 1 1/4 mills of the general alimony tax of the city of Lafayette.

The result of the special election was in favor of the bond issue, and was promulgated on December 29, 1928. On March 11, 1929, the bonds were sold to the Commercial National Bank of Lafayette, but were not issued and delivered to the purchaser.

The grounds of attack upon the special election, bond issue, and sale of the bonds to the bank are as follows:

(a) That the bonds voted and sold are for the purpose of readjusting, refunding, extending, and unifying a general indebtedness of the city of Lafayette that did not exist on or prior to January 1, 1921, in contravention of article 14, § 14, subd. (g), of the Constitution of 1921, and in contravention of section 32 of Act No. 46, Extra Sess. of 1921, as amended by Act No. 218 of 1924.

(b) That the election proceedings and proposed issue of bonds are further in contravention of subdivision (d) of Act No. 218 of 1924, amending and re-enacting section 32 of Act No. 46, Extra Sess. of 1921, in that the city of Lafayette proposes to issue and deliver to the purchaser bonds of one series of the denomination of $ 1,000 each, to run for a period of 15 years from their date, instead of providing as many series as there are outstanding indebtednesses, as required by subdivision (d) of Act No. 218 of 1924 as amended and reenacted.

(c) That the dedication of the avails of the city alimony tax to the payment of said bonds, and the sale of same to secure funds for the payment of the outstanding indebtedness of the city are further null and void, because in contravention of subdivision (f) of Act No. 218 of 1924, which requires such indebtedness to be liquidated by the issuance of bonds secured by a special tax.

The present suit was not instituted until May 13, 1929, or more than 60 days after the promulgation of the result of the election on December 29, 1928.

The defendant, the city of Lafayette, has pleaded the prescription of 60 days under subdivision (n) of section 14...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Gough v. LaSalle Parish School Bd.
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1946
    ...Drainage District, 159 La. 302, 105 So. 351; Brown v. Chataignier Gravity Drainage District, 161 La. 309, 108 So. 548; Roy v. City of Lafayette, 168 La. 1081, 123 So. 720; Charles Webster Realty Co. v. Jury, 170 La. 562, 128 So. Gravity Drainage District v. Caldwell & Co., 171 La. 58, 129 S......
  • Rawle v. Jefferson And Plaque-Mines Drainage Dist.
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1937
    ... ... La. 906] These certificates are now outstanding, the Whitney ... National Bank holding $ 45,000; Gulf Refining Company, $ ... 5,000; city of Gretna, $ 2,500; and parish of Jefferson, $ ... The ... Legislature was well aware of these outstanding certificates ... of ... 302, 105 So. 351; ... Brown v. Chataignier Gravity Drainage District, 161 ... La. 309, 108 So. 548; Roy v. City of Lafayette, 168 ... La. 1081, 123 So. 720; Charles Webster Realty Co. v ... Police Jury, 170 La. 562, 128 So. 516; Gravity ... Drainage District [187 ... ...
  • McLavy v. American Legion Housing Corp.
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • February 14, 1955
    ...La. 422, 105 So. 418; Gravity Drainage District No. 2, Tangipahoa Parish v. Caldwell & Co., 171 La. 58, 129 So. 668; Roy v. City of Lafayette, 168 La. 1081, 123 So. 720; Nanney v. Town of Leesville, 198 La. 773, 4 So.2d 825; Browning v. Webster Parish School Board, 212 La. 139, 31 So.2d 621......
  • Nanney v. Town of Leesville
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • November 3, 1941
    ...Parih School Board, 155 La. 331, 99 So. 280; Hardin v. Police Jury of Vernon Parish, 155 La. 899, 99 So. 690; Roy v. City of Lafayette, 168 La. 1081, 123 So. 720; McGuffie v. Police Jury of Catahoula Parish, 183 La. 391, So. 841; and Miller v. Town of Bernice, 186 La. 742, 173 So. 192. The ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT