State v. Wilder

• Decision Date: 18 December 1906
• Citation: 98 S.W. 465
• Parties: STATE ex rel. CITY OF CHILLICOTHE v. WILDER, State Auditor.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

98 S.W. 465

STATE ex rel. CITY OF CHILLICOTHE v. WILDER, State Auditor.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

December 18, 1906.

1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS —BONDS—ELECTION —NOTICE—PUBLICATION.

Where an ordinance provided for an election to determine the advisability of issuing municipal bonds, and required that at least 15 days' previous notice should be given of the election by publication in a specified daily newspaper, a publication for 17 consecutive issues of the paper beginning January 8, 1906, and continuing until and including January 25, 1906, was sufficient, though the publication was not continued up to and including the day of the election which occurred on January 29, 1906.

2. SAME—STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

Where an ordinance provided for an election to determine the advisability of issuing bonds for the purpose of erecting "a waterworks and electric light plant," it provided for the erection of but a single plant on one site to be conducted by one management so that the vote was not defective as submitting two propositions in such a manner that the voters could not vote for one.

3. SAME—DEBT LIMIT—MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS —STATUTES—CONSTRUCTION.

Const. art. 10, § 12a provides that any city in the state containing more than 30,000 or less than 2,000 inhabitants may, with the assent of 2/3 of the voters thereof, voting at an election, be allowed to become indebted in a larger amount than the 5 per cent. limit specified in section 12 for the purpose of "purchasing or constructing waterworks or electric light plants" to be owned exclusively by the city so purchasing and constructing the same. Held, that a city subject to such provisions having exceeded its 5 per cent. debt limit, had power to issue bonds for the "erection or construction" of a waterworks and electric light plant, but had no power to issue such bonds to maintain and operate the same.

In Banc. Application by the state on relation of the city of Chillicothe for mandamus

against William W. Wilder, State Auditor, to require registration of bonds issued by relator. Writ denied.

Frank W. Ashby and Oscar L. Smith, for relator. The Attorney General, N. T. Gentry, Louis A. Chapman, and Scott J. Miller, for respondent.

GANTT, J.

This is an original proceeding commenced in this court to obtain a writ of mandamus against the State Auditor to require him to register 100 bonds of the denomination of $1,000 each, issued by the city of Chillicothe. The facts are all agreed upon. The city of Chillicothe is a municipal corporation having a special charter, and containing a population of about 8,000 inhabitants according to the last previous assessment before the issuing of bonds, the assessed value of the taxable property in said city was $1,513,139.15. At the present time, and at the time of holding the special election, authorizing the issue of said bonds, the bonded indebtedness of the city was $20,000. On January 2, 1906, the counsel of said city passed and approved an Ordinance No. 198, having for its purpose the calling of a special election, to test the sense of the voters of the city upon a proposition to issue bonds in the sum of $100,000, in order to provide "a waterworks and electric light plant." The notice of the election was published in the Chillicothe Constitution, a daily newspaper, published in the city for 17 consecutive issues of said paper previous to the election which was held on the 29th of January, 1906. At said election 842 votes were cast in favor of said issuing of bonds, and 182 against it. This result was formally declared by an Ordinance No. 202 passed, and approved on the 5th of February, 1906. On the 23d of February, 1906, Ordinance 203 was passed and approved authorizing the city authorities to issue said bonds, and in pursuance thereto bonds were issued, signed by the proper authorities with the corporate seal of the city thereon. These bonds were presented with the necessary fees to the Auditor for registration, and he refused to register them on the grounds, first, because the notice of the election was not published 15 consecutive days immediately previous to the election, and second, because the proposition voted on, contained two propositions, one, a waterworks plant, and the other, an electric light plant, whereby it was impossible for any voter to vote for one and against the other, if he desired to do so, and for the further reason, that the ordinance did not designate what amount of money was to be used to provide a waterworks plant, nor what part was to be used for the electric light plant, and third, because section 12a of article 10 of the Constitution of Missouri, only authorizes the city to increase its debt for the purpose of "purchasing or constructing waterworks, electric, and other light plants," and not for the purpose of "erecting, constructing, maintaining, and operating the same," as provided by the Ordinance No. 198 passed and approved by the city of Chillicothe, January 2, 1906, and fourth, because no provision was made by the ordinance for the per cent. of additional taxation to pay the interest or constitute a sinking fund to pay the principal of said bonds as they mature, nor, was the matter submitted to the voters.

1. The ordinance itself provides that "at least 15 days previous notice shall be given...