State ex rel. Patterson v. Bd. of Com'rs of Douglas Cnty.
Decision Date | 05 March 1896 |
Citation | 47 Neb. 428,66 N.W. 434 |
Parties | STATE EX REL. PATTERSON v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF DOUGLAS COUNTY ET AL. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. By an act of the legislature there was provided to be appointed a board of trustees, which, when organized, should, in law and equity, be construed as a body corporate and politic, and which might, in its corporate name, sue and be sued, contract and be contracted with, acquire and hold real and personal property necessary for its corporate purposes, adopt and change its corporate seal, construct and operate a canal, for the purposes of commerce, and supplying power, heat, and light. Held, that this was not a municipal corporation, and that the attempt to make it a corporation was nugatory, because, in effect, the general corporation law in existence was thereby sought to be amended without its provisions being referred to in any way in the amendatory act.
2. In the title of an act, its scope was defined as authorizing counties of a prescribed description, among other powers conferred, to construct, own, and operate canals in certain defined ways, and also to acquire right of way and land for such purposes, and also to provide for the appointment of a board of trustees to carry such purposes into effect. In the act itself, provision was made for the appointment of a board of trustees, which, when organized, should, in law and equity, be construed a body corporate and politic; and in this board the act provided there should be vested the power to construct and operate such canal, and that, for those purposes, such board of trustees might, in its own name, acquire right of way and other required land, even by condemnation proceedings, if necessary. Held, that the subject of the act was not clearly expressed in its title, as required in section 11, art. 3, of the constitution of Nebraska, and that, since this defect rendered inoperative its other provisions, the entire act is null and void.
Error to district court, Douglas county; Ambrose, Duffie, and Keysor, Judges.
Mandamus, on the relation of David C. Patterson, against the board of county commissioners of Douglas county. Guy C. Barton and others intervened. To the judgment rendered, relator brings error. Affirmed.Charles J. Greene, John L. Kennedy, Chas. Ogden, Geo. W. Covell, and B. S. Baker, for plaintiff in error.
Chas. Offutt, W. S. Poppleton, and H. H. Baldrige, for defendants in error.
At the last session of the legislature of this state there was passed and approved an act, entitled “An act enabling counties in the state of Nebraska having a population of not less than 125,000 inhabitants to issue bonds, to construct, own and operate canals in the state of Nebraska for navigation, water power and other purposes, and generating of electric and other power and transmitting of the same for light, heat, power, and other purposes, and to acquire right of way and land for such purposes, and to provide for the appointment of a board of trustees to carry into effect the purposes of this act, and to levy taxes to pay the same and interest thereon, and to repeal section 2032a, Consolidated Statutes, 1893.” Sess. Laws 1895, c. 71. Douglas county alone, in this state, has a population adequate to render available the above provisions. In the body of the act in question it is provided that the bonds which may be issued shall not exceed in amount 10 per cent. of the assessed valuation of the county, and that whether or not bonds shall be voted must first be submitted to the voters of the county, in compliance with the prayer of a petition signed by 2,500 legal voters asking such submission, which petition must be presented to and acted upon by the county commissioners. A petition in conformity with the above requirements was presented to the board of county commissioners of Douglas county. This board refused to call an election, and, by mandamus in the proper district court, it was sought, by one of the petitioners, to compel the county board to order an election. The judgment of the district court was adverse to relator, and the correctness of this judgment is now challenged by this error proceeding.
It is very difficult to summarize the provisions of the above act within a reasonably brief space. Nevertheless, this shall now be attempted. After the proposition to issue bonds has been carried, it becomes the duty of the county commissioners to notify the judges of the district court of the result of the election, whereupon these judges are required to appoint five trustees. Each of the trustees must give an official bond, in such amount as the board of county commissioners may fix. It is provided that the board of trustees shall, “when duly organized be construed in law and equity a body corporate and politic, and shall be known by the name and style of ‘The Board of Canal Trustees of ______ County, Nebraska,’ and by such name and style may sue and be sued, contract and be contracted with, acquire and hold real estate and personal property necessary for its corporate purposes, and adopt a common seal and alter the same at pleasure, and shall exercise all the powers necessary to carry into effect the object for which such board shall have been appointed, and shall control and manage all the affairs and property which shall come into the hands or under the control of such board of trustees.” Sess. Laws 1895, p. 307, c. 71, § 1. It further provided that Sess. Laws 1895, p. 308, c. 71, § 1.
It is scarcely necessary, perhaps, to note that, in respect to the canal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. City of Tampa
... ... authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 ... Fla. 224, 37 So. 51, that the ... 148, ... 17 S.W. 702; State ex rel. Patterson v. Board of ... Com'rs of Douglas County, 47 Neb. 428, 66 ... ...
- State ex rel. Patterson v. Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County
-
Webster v. City of Hastings
...is in conflict with the act of March 1, 1879, which is not amended or repealed. It is, therefore, unconstitutional. See State v. Board of Commissioners, 47 Neb. 438; State v. Cobb, 44 Neb. 438; In re Roll 284, 31 Neb. 509; State v. Corner, 22 Neb. 272; Smails v. White, 4 Neb. 357; Sovereign......
-
Webster v. City of Hastings
...legislation affecting cities having less than 10,000 inhabitants. Sheasley v. Keens, 48 Neb. 57, 66 N. W. 1010;State v. Board of Com'rs of Douglas Co., 47 Neb. 428, 66 N. W. 434;Weigel v. City of Hastings, 29 Neb. 379, 45 N. W. 694; Touzalin v. City of Omaha, 25 Neb. 817, 41 N. W. 817; Stat......