State ex rel. Lauderbaugh v. Little
| Decision Date | 09 June 1948 |
| Docket Number | 31458. |
| Citation | 149 Ohio St. 560,80 N.E.2d 148 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. LAUDERBAUGH et al., Board of County Com'rs, v. LITTLE, County Clerk. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Under the Uniform Bond Act providing that maturities of bonds shall not extend beyond limitation specified, that notice of election shall state the maximum number of years during which the bonds shall run, and that maturity need not be the same as fixed in a prior resolution, sewer bonds of Franklin county could be issued with a maximum maturity period of less than 25 years notwithstanding prior steps in bond issuing proceedings, including the authorizing election, specified a maximum maturity period of 25 years. Gen.Code, §§ 2293-1 et seq., 2293-9, 2293-21, 2293-23, 2293-26.
This action in mandamus was submitted for final determination on the petition and demurrer thereto filed in this court. Facts hereinafter recited are epitomized from the allegations of the petition.
The board of county commissioners of Franklin county adopted a resolution requesting the county auditor to certify the estimated life of a trunk-line sewer improvement and the maximum maturity of bonds in the sum of $1,500,000. The county auditor certified the estimated life of the improvement to be at least 25 years, the aforestated sum would be required and the maximum maturity period of the bonds would be 25 years.
A resolution of necessity was adopted by the board, and the county auditor thereafter certified the average annual levy which would be required to pay interest on and retire the bonds. The board adopted a resolution determining that the bonds would mature in fifty substantially equal semiannual installments and directing that the question of the issuance of the bonds be submitted to the electors of the county. The newspaper notice of the election stated 25 as the maximum number of years during which the bonds were to run, the ballot set forth the average millage for a maximum period of 25 years to pay the principal and interest, and the bond issue was approved by the required number of voters.
The board of county commissioners later adopted a resolution to issue an installment of $39,900 out of the bond issue, the last bond of the installment to mature in 20 years. The bonds were offered for sale and the board accepted the bid of the highest bidder whose attorney rejected the bonds for the reason that the maximum maturity period was 20 years.
The board of county commissioners adopted a resolution authorizing and directing its clerk to readvertise and sell the bonds, the clerk refused to comply, and the relators, as members of the board of county commissioners, instituted the present proceeding for a writ of mandamus commanding the clerk to proceed in accordance with the authorization and direction of the resolution.
Ralph J. Bartlett, Pros. Atty., and Robert P. Barnhart, both of Columbus, for relators.
David B. Sharp and William C. Bryant, both of Columbus, for respondent.
The sole question before the court is whether bonds may be issued with a maximum maturity period of less than 25 years, where the prior steps in the bond-issuing proceedings specify a maximum maturity period of 25 years.
Counsel for respondent rely on the per curiam opinion in State ex rel. Curren, Dir., v....
To continue reading
Request your trial