State ex rel. City of Jefferson v. Smith, 37733.

• Decision Date: 25 September 1941
• Docket Number: No. 37733.,37733.
• Citation: 154 S.W.2d 101
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI at the relation of the CITY OF JEFFERSON, a Municipal Corporation of the Third Class of Cole County, Relator, v. FORREST SMITH, State Auditor.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

154 S.W.2d 101 STATE OF MISSOURI at the relation of the CITY OF JEFFERSON, a Municipal Corporation of the Third Class of Cole County, Relator,
v.
FORREST SMITH, State Auditor. No. 37733. Supreme Court of Missouri. Court en Banc, September 25, 1941.

[154 S.W.2d 102]

Mandamus.

PEREMPTORY WRIT DENIED.

Frank E. Atwood, James A. Potter and John O. Bond for relator.

(1) The city's ordinance direction that the building shall include and provide office space and facilities for the Unemployment Compensation Commission of Missouri does not affect the validity of the bonds previously voted. (a) The validity of bonds duly authorized by separate proceedings and at a separate election for an entirely valid purpose is not affected by the invalidity of a contract as to disposition of proceeds of the bonds. Green v. Rock Hill, 147 N.E. 346, 146 S.C. 234; Doody v. State ex rel. Mobile County, 171 So. 504, 233 Ala. 287; Paine v. Port of Seattle, 70 Wash. 294, 127 Pac. 580; 5 McQuillin on Municipal Corps. (2 Ed.), sec. 2325, p. 939; Halbruegger v. St. Louis, 302 Mo. 573, 262 S.W. 379. (b) The primary purpose to erect a municipal office building must be regarded in determining the validity of the bond issue. Wheelock v. Lowell, 196 Mass. 220, 81 N.E. 977; Bates v. Barrett, 60 Vt. 531, 1 L.R.A. 166; Railroad Co. v. Smith, 62 Ill. 273. (2) The bonds are valid notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1 and 3 of Article X of the Constitution of Missouri. Secs. 1, 3, Art. X, Mo. Const. (a) The provision of office space and facilities for the Unemployment Compensation Commission is a public purpose. Secs. 9422, 9425, R.S. 1929. (b) According to the modern weight of authority such provision is also a public municipal purpose. Halbruegger v. St. Louis, 262 S.W. 379, 302 Mo. 573; Egan v. San Francisco, 165 Cal. 581, 133 Pac. 295, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 754; State ex rel. City of Excelsior Springs v. Smith, 82 S.W. (2d) 37, 336 Mo. 1104; People ex rel. v. Township Board of Salem, 20 Mich. 452, 4 Am. Rep. 400. (c) In determining what is a municipal purpose great weight is properly given to the necessity for and the benefits to be derived from the proposed building by the municipality. McQuillin on Mun. Corps. (2 Ed.), sec. 2323; Callam v. Saginaw, 50 Mich. 7, 14 N.W. 677; Hackett v. Ottawa, 25 U.S. (L. Ed.) 363; Sacramento Chamber of Commerce v. Stephens, 212 Cal. 607, 299 Pac. 728; Turner v. Hattiesburg, 53 So. 681; McNulty v. Owens, 188 S.C. 377, 199 S.E. 425; Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis, 81 U.S. (L. Ed.) 1279, 109 A.L.R. 129; Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood County, 91 Fed. (2d) 665; State ex rel. City of Excelsior Springs v. Smith, 82 S.W. (2d) 37, 336 Mo. 1104; 6 McQuillin on Mun. Corps., sec. 2439, p. 160. (d) When public purposes are germane to objects of the creation of the municipality they are public municipal purposes. Taylor v. Thompson, 42 Ill. 9; Laws 1921, chap. 351; Laws 1922, Chaps. 365, 446; Sec. 56, Art. IV, and Sec. 1 of Art. V, Mo. Const. 1875. (e) Even if some of the purposes of a city bond issue be not strictly public municipal purposes yet such bond issue is not necessarily violative of these constitutional provisions. 5 McQuillin on Mun. Corps. (2 Ed.), secs. 2325, 2329; Page v. Gallup, 26 N.M. 239, 191 Pac. 460; City of Mission v. Richards, 274 S.W. 269; Le Coutenlx v. Buffalo, 33 N.Y. 333; Harris v. St. Louis, 111 S.W. (2d) 995; Clarey v. Philadelphia, 311 Pa. 11, 166 Atl. 237; McQuillin on Mun. Corps. (2 Ed.), sec. 1247; Jones v. Sandford, 66 Me. 685; Stone v. Oconomowac, 71 Wis. 155, 36 N.W. 829; Bates v. Bassett, 60 Vt. 530; Biddeford v. Yates, 104 Me. 506; Gottleib-Knabe & Co. v. Macklin, 109 Md. 429, 71 Atl. 949; Worden v. New Bedford, 131 Mass. 23. (f) The courts are inclined to construe these constitutional restrictions with great liberality in the interest of the public welfare and modern progress. Dysart v. St. Louis, 321 Mo. 514, 11 S.W. (2d) 1045; Jennings v. St. Louis, 332 Mo. 173, 58 S.W. (2d) 979, 87 A.L.R. 365; State ex rel. City of Hannibal v. Smith, 335 Mo. 825, 74 S.W. (2d) 367; Krause v. Peoria Housing Authority, 370 Ill. 356, 19 N.E. (2d) 193; Edwards v. Housing Authority of City of Muncie, 215 Ind. 330, 19 N.E. (2d) 741; Marvin v. Housing Authority of Jacksonville, 133 Fla. 590, 183 So. 145; Rutherford v. City of Great Falls, 107 Mont. 512, 86 Pac. (2d) 656; State ex rel. Helena Housing Authority v. City Council, 108 Mont. 347, 90 Pac. (2d) 514; Furlong v. South Park Commissioner, 340 Ill. 363, 172 N.E. 757; Briggs v. Raleigh, 195 N.C. 223, 141 S.E. 597, 600; Oakland v. Williams, 206 Cal. 315, 274 Pac. 328; Lott v. Orlando, 142 Fla. 338, 196 So. 313. (3) These bonds are not invalid under Section 47 of Article IV or Section 6 of Article IX of the Constitution of Missouri. Sec. 47, Art. IV, and Sec. 6 of Art. IX, Mo. Const.; State v. Curators State University, 57 Mo. 178; State ex rel. v. St. Louis, 216 Mo. 47; Unemployment Compensation Law, Art. 2, R.S. 1939; State ex inf. McKittrick v. Murphy, 148 S.W. (2d) 527; Vrooman v. St. Louis, 337 Mo. 933, 99 S.W. (2d) 189; Haeussler v. St. Louis, 205 Mo. 656; Sun Ptg. & Pub. Assn. v. New York, 40 N.Y. Supp. 607, 8 App. Div. 230, 75 N.Y. St. Rep. 1, affirmed 152 N.Y. 257, 46 N.E. 499, 37 L.R.A. 788; State ex rel. City of Boonville v. Hackmann, 293 Mo. 313, 240 S.W. 135; State ex rel. Zoological Board of Control v. St. Louis, 318 Mo. 910, 1 S.W. (2d)...