State v. Board of Com'rs of Hill County

• Decision Date: 05 November 1919
• Docket Number: 4492.
• Citation: 185 P. 456,56 Mont. 387
• Parties: STATE ex rel. CALLES v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF HILL COUNTY et al.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

185 P. 456

56 Mont. 387

STATE ex rel. CALLES v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF HILL COUNTY et al.

No. 4492.

Supreme Court of Montana

November 5, 1919

Original proceeding in mandamus by the State, on the relation of Frank Calles, against the Board of County Commissioners of Hill County and others. On motion to quash. Motion overruled, and peremptory writ granted.

Norris & Hurd, of Great Falls, for relator.

Frank Woody, of Helena, and C. R. Stranahan, of Havre, for respondents.

HOLLOWAY J.

On August 18th last, a petition in due form, signed by the required number of qualified freeholders, was presented to the board of county commissioners of Hill county, praying that there be submitted to the electors the question whether an indebtedness should be incurred to furnish seed grain feed, provisions, and other necessary supplies to the inhabitants of the county who by reason of drought and other unfavorable climatic conditions had been rendered financially unable to procure the same. The proceedings were taken pursuant to chapter 8, Laws of the Extraordinary Session of 1919. Upon consideration of the petition, the board ordered an election for September 2d to determine whether a county indebtedness in the sum of $800,000 should be incurred for the purposes indicated. At the same election a proposition to incur an indebtedness in the sum of $150,000 for road purposes, and a further proposition to incur an indebtedness of $200,000 under the provisions of chapter 19, Laws of the Extraordinary Session of 1918, were submitted. Each of the three propositions received a majority of the votes cast, but thereafter the board concluded that $727,000 was the limit of indebtedness for Hill county; that the additional indebtedness for road purposes should be incurred; and that of the $800,000 indebtedness authorized, only about $110,000 could be made available, and refused to proceed further in that behalf. This proceeding was thereupon instituted. The motion of the board to quash the alternative writ heretofore issued raises for determination the single question: Upon what basis is the constitutional limit of county indebtedness computed?

Section 4 of chapter 8, above, provides that upon consideration of the petition the board must make an estimate of the amount of indebtedness the county will be required to incur in order to furnish the relief. Section 6 provides for an election if the estimate exceeds $10,000, and provides further that if the amount of the estimate, together with the outstanding indebtedness, exceeds the constitutional limit, the estimate shall be reduced to an amount which, with the outstanding indebtedness, will not exceed the limit.

By submitting to the electors the question whether an indebtedness in the sum of $800,000 should be incurred, the board determined that such amount, together with the outstanding indebtedness, would not exceed the constitutional limit. The evident purpose of the provision in section 6 above, is to furnish a rule for the guidance of the board to the end that the expense of an election shall be avoided if the margin between the outstanding indebtedness and the limit fixed by the Constitution is so narrow that no substantial amount of additional indebtedness is possible. A mistake on the part of the board in determining that a particular amount of additional indebtedness will not bring the total county indebtedness beyond the limit cannot possibly settle the question. The validity of the additional indebtedness must be determined from a consideration of the amount of it, the amount of the existing indebtedness, and the amount fixed by the Constitution as the limit of indebtedness.

Without deciding whether money in the sinking fund, or taxes imposed for the benefit of the sinking fund and in the process of collection, may be deducted, it is sufficient for the purposes of this proceeding to say that at all the times herein mentioned the outstanding indebtedness of Hill county was $467,000. Whether the additional indebtedness of $800,000 could be incurred legally depends upon the answer to the inquiry: What is the constitutional limit of indebtedness of Hill county?

Section 5, art. 13, of our Constitut...