State ex rel. Gilpin v. Smith
| Decision Date | 08 July 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 35095.,35095. |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI at the relation of GEORGE K. GILPIN, B.A. STANTON and A.B. NEUDORFF, Judges of the County Court of Buchanan County, Relators, v. FORREST SMITH, State Auditor. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
(1) The $300,000 of two and three-fourths per cent poor relief bonds of Buchanan County, Missouri, are legal and valid. They are being issued for a county public purpose, and, having been authorized by a two-thirds vote of the electors and being within the constitutional debt limit, said bonds may be issued under the provisions of Section 12, Article X of the Constitution of Missouri without express statutory authority. State ex rel. Clark County v. Hackmann, 280 Mo. 686, 218 S.W. 318; Jennings v. St. Louis, 58 S.W. (2d) 979; Kruesel v. Collin, 171 Wash. 200, 17 Pac. (2d) 854; Mo. Utilities Co. v. California, 8 Fed. Supp. 454; Mo. Const., Sec. 12, Art. X; Secs. 12938-12945, 12950-12967, R.S. 1929. (2) The $1,434,238.22 of two and three-fourths per cent refunding bonds of Buchanan County, Missouri, are legal and valid. (a) Said bonds are authorized by Sections 2922-2923, Revised Statutes 1929. (b) Said bonds may be issued under the provisions of Section 12, Article X of the Constitution of Missouri without express statutory authority. Cases under Point (1).
Roy McKittrick, Attorney General, and Covell R. Hewitt, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents; John L. Graves of counsel.
(1) Buchanan County, Missouri, was and is without power and authority to issue $300,000 of two and three-fourths per cent poor relief bonds of said county, authorized for the purpose of providing funds for the relief of the unemployed poor of said county. City of Brenham v. German-American Bank, 144 U.S. 173, 12 Sup. Ct. 559, 36 L. Ed. 390; Bay County v. State, 116 Fla. 656, 157 So. 1; McCord v. Marshall County, 152 Tenn. 675, 280 S.W. 692; Reed v. Cedar Rapids, 136 Iowa, 191, 113 N.W. 773; Dysart v. St. Louis, 321 Mo. 514, 11 S.W. (2d) 1045; Jennings v. St. Louis, 332 Mo. 173, 58 S.W. (2d) 979; State ex rel. Clark County v. Hackmann, 280 Mo. 686, 218 S.W. 318; Bohannon v. Louisville, 193 Ky. 276, 235 S.W. 750; 2 Dillon, Mun. Corps. (5 Ed.), sec. 872; 6 McQuillin, Mun. Corps. (2 Ed.), sec. 2436; Secs. 7217, 12950, 12967, 12938, 12945, R.S. 1929; Sec. 12, Art. X, Mo. Const. (2) Buchanan County, Missouri, was and is without power and authority to issue $1,434,238.22 of two and three-fourths per cent refunding bonds of said county, authorized for the purpose of providing funds for retiring, redeeming and paying off outstanding judgment funding bonds of said county. Secs. 2922, 2892, R.S. 1929, as amended.
This is an original proceeding in mandamus brought by the judges of the County Court of Buchanan County, Missouri, as relators against the respondent, the State Auditor, to compel his registration and certification under Section 2915, Revised Statutes 1929, of two bond issues of Buchanan County, Missouri.
The application for the alternative writ here, which was taken for the alternative writ, is in two counts. In the first count, the relators seek to compel the respondent to register and certify a bond issue of $300,000 of two and three-fourths per cent poor relief bonds of Buchanan County. In the second count the relators seek to compel the respondent to register and certify a bond issue of $1,434,238.22 of two and three-fourths per cent refunding bonds of Buchanan County. The purpose of these bonds is to retire an issue of five per cent judgment funding bonds of that county which will become due July 15, 1936. Both of these bond issues have been duly authorized by a vote of more than two-thirds of the qualified voters of that county voting at a special bond election held on March 24, 1936.
In the respondent's return, he admits that the special bond election was duly and regularly called by order of the County Court of Buchanan County, Missouri; that notices of the special election were duly given; that the special election was duly and regularly held and conducted in the manner and by the authorities provided by law; that the results thereof were duly and regularly determined; and that both bond issues were authorized by a vote of more than two-thirds of the qualified voters of the county voting at the special election. The return further admits that the county court of that county, by its orders duly made and entered of record, has authorized the execution, sale and delivery of the $300,000 of two and three-fourths per cent poor relief bonds and of the $1,434,238.22 of two and three-fourths per cent refunding bonds of that county; that these bonds are in proper form, and that these bonds have been duly executed and tendered to the respondent for registration and certification. The return states that the respondent refuses to register and certify the $300,000 of two and three-fourths per cent poor relief bond issue "for the reason that there is no statutory authority in the State of Missouri authorizing or permitting Buchanan County, Missouri, to issue bonds for the purpose of providing funds for relief and care of the unemployed poor of said county" and that respondent refuses to register and certify the $1,434,238.22 of two and three-fourths per cent of the refunding bonds "for the reason that there is no statutory authority in the State of Missouri authorizing or permitting Buchanan County, Missouri, to issue bonds for the purpose of providing funds for retiring, redeeming, and paying off outstanding judgment funding bonds of said county of the character of the bonds referred to in the second count of relators' petition herein."
To respondent's return, relators have filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
In respondent's brief, he states: "It will be noted that but a single issue is presented to this Court for determination and that such issue, it being the same for each count, is whether Buchanan County, Missouri, has lawful authority to vote and issue the bonds in question."
[1] I. Relators admit that there is no express statutory authority for Buchanan County, Missouri, or for any county in the State, to vote and issue bonds to provide funds for the relief of the unemployed poor of such county. But relators do contend that under Section 12 of Article X of the Constitution of Missouri a county in this State may issue bonds without express statutory authority, provided (1) that the bonds are issued only for a county public purpose; (2) that the bonds were authorized by two-thirds of the voters of the county voting on the proposition; and (3) that the bonds and all other indebtedness of the county cannot, for general purposes, exceed five per cent of the total assessed valuation of the taxable property of the county to be ascertained by the assessment next preceding the last assessment previous to the incurring of the indebtedness.
In the case of State ex rel. Clark County v. Hackmann, 280 Mo. 686, 218 S.W. 318, the County Court of Clark County submitted to the voters the proposition of incurring an indebtedness in the sum of $103,944.04, and issuing bonds of the county therefor, to pay judgments against the county. The bonds were duly authorized at a special bond election by a vote of more than two-thirds of the electors voting on the proposition. We sustained the validity of the bonds on the grounds that Section 12 of Article X of our State Constitution in itself constitutes a grant of authority to contract indebtedness for a public purpose with the assent of two-thirds of the voters voting on the proposition, and within the debt limitation specified in Section 12 of Article X of the Constitution. We also held that the debt created by the bond issue was for a "public purpose" within the meaning of Section 3 of Article X of our Constitution.
On the authority of the case of State ex rel. Clark County v. Hackmann, supra, we hold that Section 12 of Article X of our State Constitution is a self-enforcing grant of power permitting a county to incur indebtedness for a county public purpose if authorized by two-thirds of the voters of the county voting at an election on such propositio...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Nat. Bank of Stoutland v. Stoutland School Dist. R2
...in any year the income and revenue provided for such year plus any unencumbered balances from previous years * * *.' State ex rel. Gilpin v. Smith, 339 Mo. 194, 96 S.W.2d 40; State ex Inf. Dalton v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 365 Mo. 1, 275 S.W.2d 225; Bull v. McQuie, 342 Mo. 851, ......
- State ex rel. Gilpin v. Smith
-
Ginger v. Halferty, 39664.
...validity of the bonds under Section 12, Article 10, Constitution 1875, Mo.R.S.A., without an enabling statute. In State ex rel. Gilpin v. Smith, 339 Mo. 194, 96 S.W.2d 40, refunding bonds had been issued and so, again, the question was whether such bonds were possible under the Constitution......