State ex rel. Grady v. Comm'rs Lincoln Co.
Decision Date | 21 October 1885 |
Parties | STATE EX REL. GRADY v. COMMISSIONERS LINCOLN CO. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Snelling & Talbott, for plaintiff.
Hinman & Nesbitt, for defendant.
The question presented for decision in this case is whether or not counties have authority to borrow money by the issuance of bonds for the purpose of constructing a county jail. It is well settled in this state that counties have no inherent power, and their commissioners or agents acting for them have only such powers, generally, as are especially granted to them by statute, or such as are incidentally necessary to carry into effect those which are granted. Hallenbeck v. Hahn, 2 Neb. 397;Sioux City & P. R. Co. v. Washington Co., 3 Neb. 42; Sexson v. Kelley, Id. 107; People v. Commissioners of Buffalo Co., 4 Neb. 157;Hamlin v. Meadville, 6 Neb. 233; State v. Buffalo Co., Id. 460; McCann v. Otoe Co., 9 Neb. 331;S. C. 2 N. W. Rep. 707;Walsh v. Rogers, 15 Neb. 311; S. C. 18 N. W. Rep. 135. And the grant of power must be strictly construed. Sioux City & P. R. Co. v. Washington Co., supra; Commissioners Hamilton Co. v. Mighels, 7 Ohio St. 115;Treadwell v Commissioners, 11 Ohio St. 190.
In Hamlin v. Meadville, supra, Judge MAXWELL, in writing the opinion of the court, says: * * *”
There being no question, then, upon the necessity of the grant of power before authority exists, it is only necessary to examine the statute, and ascertain whether the grant has been made.
Defendants insist that the second subdivision of sections 25 and 26 to 31, inclusive, of chapter 18 of the Compiled Statutes gives the authority to them to issue the bonds. The second clause of section 25 provides that it shall be the duty of the county board of each county The other sections referred to are as follows:
“Sec. 26. Whenever the county board shall deem it necessary to assess taxes, the aggregate of which shall exceed the rate of one dollar and fifty cents per one hundred dollars valuation of the county, except when such excess is to be used for the payment of indebtedness existing at the adoption of the constitution, the county board may, by an order entered of record, set forth substantially the amount of such excess required, and the purpose for which the same will be required; and if for the payment of interest or principal, or both, upon bonds, shall in a general way designate the bonds and specify the number of years such excess will require to be levied, and provide for the submission of the question of assessing the additional rate required to a vote of the people of the county at the next election for county officers after the adoption of the resolution. If the proposition for such additional tax be carried, the same shall be paid in money and in no other manner.
Sec. 27. The mode of submitting questions to the people for any purpose authorized by law shall be as follows: The whole question, including the sum desired to be raised, or the amount of tax desired to be levied, or the rate per annum, and the whole regulation, including the time of its taking effect or having operation, if it be of a nature to be set forth, and the penalty of its violation, if there be one, is to be published for four weeks in some newspaper published in the county. If there be no such newspaper, the publication must he made by being posted up in at least one of the most public places in each election precinct in the county; and in all cases the notices shall name the time when such question will be voted upon and the form in which the question shall be taken, and a copy of the question submitted shall be posted up at each place...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Union Pacific Railway Company v. Colfax County
... ... to be strictly construed. (State v. County Commissioners ... of Lincoln County, 18 Neb. 283, 25 N.W. 91.) They have ... no authority to construct a ditch under the ... ...
-
State ex rel. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Bd. of Com'rs of Colfax Cnty.
...County boards possess limited jurisdiction, and the grant of power conferred upon them is to be strictly construed. State v. Lincoln Co., 18 Neb. 283, 25 N. W. 91. They have no authority to construct a ditch under the drainage law, unless all the jurisdictional steps have been taken. It is ......
-
Ayres v. Moan
... ... (Clark v. Holmes, 1 Doug. [Mich.], 390; State v ... Nemaha Co., 10 Neb. 33; State v. Nelson, 21 ... Haute v. Hudnut, 13 N.E. [Ind.], 686; State, ex rel ... Newell, v. Purdy, 36 Wis. 222; Denver, etc., Co., v ... ...
- State ex rel. Grady v. The Bd. of County Commissioners of Lincoln County