State v. Allen

• Decision Date: 28 February 1905
• Citation: 186 Mo. 673,85 S.W. 531
• Parties: STATE ex rel. CITY OF BETHANY v. ALLEN, State Auditor.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

85 S.W. 531

186 Mo. 673

STATE ex rel. CITY OF BETHANY v. ALLEN, State Auditor.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

February 28, 1905.

MUNICIPAL INDEBTEDNESS — ELECTIONS — PROPOSITIONS TO VOTERS — BONDS — VALIDITY.

Propositions to the voters of a municipality for the issuance of bonds for the construction of a public building and for improvements in the waterworks and electric light plant cannot be submitted as one proposition, to be answered "Yes" or "No"; and bonds issued pursuant to an election in which they were united in the same submission are invalid.

In Banc. Application for mandamus by the state, on the relation of the city of Bethany, against Albert O. Allen, State Auditor, to require the respondent to register certain bonds. Writ denied.

Winslow & Hopkins, for relator. E. C. Crow, Atty. Gen., and Sam B. Jeffries, for respondent.

BRACE, C. J.

This is a proceeding by mandamus to require the respondent, as State Auditor, to register 24 bonds, each of the face value of $500, issued by the relator, a city of the fourth class, under and in pursuance of ordinances duly enacted and a special election held for that purpose.

The proposition voted on at said election was "for said city to become indebted in the sum of twelve thousand dollars in excess of its annual revenue for the following purposes, to wit: Forty five hundred dollars to be used for the purpose of purchasing a site and the erection and construction of a public building thereon, or the purchase of a site and building to be used for a city hall, city prison, and hosehouse, and for furnishing the same, and the further sum of seventy five hundred dollars to be used in making repairs and improvements in waterworks and electric light plant and extension of water mains and electric lines belonging to said city." All this was submitted as a single proposition on which the voters were required to vote by ballots in the following form: "For increase of debt — yes." "For increase of debt — No." That this submission contained at least two separate and distinct propositions — one for an increase of municipal indebtedness to a certain amount for one purpose, and another for an increase of municipal indebtedness to another and different amount for another and different purpose — is beyond question. And it being manifest that such a submission was in the teeth of the well-recognized principle of law "that two propositions cannot be united in the submission so as to have one expression of the voter...