Stokes v. City of Montgomery
Decision Date | 27 June 1919 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 414 |
Citation | 82 So. 663,203 Ala. 307 |
Parties | STOKES v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; W.L. Martin, Judge.
Bill by M.C. Stokes against the City of Montgomery. Decree for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Ball & Beckwith, of Montgomery, for appellant.
G.F Mertins and Steiner, Crum & Weil, all of Montgomery, for appellee.
The bill was filed to prevent the issue and sale of bonds of the city of Montgomery in the sum of $50,000 for the purpose of building and equipping a city hospital. The bill prayed that the city be made party defendant; that it and its officials be permanently enjoined and restrained "from taking any further steps toward issuing and selling said bonds under the authority now claimed by them, and that their successors, in their respective official positions, may likewise be perpetually enjoined from doing so." The question for decision is presented by the sustaining of the city's demurrer holding the bill without equity.
On October 5, 1908, another meeting of the city council of said city, at which a quorum was present qualified to do business, was held, at which the committee on finance reported favorably upon the ordinance to hold the election for the purpose of voting on said bonds as hereinabove stated, and at said meeting said ordinance was duly and legally adopted and spread upon the minutes of the meeting, and duly approved by the major of said city and published as required by law. And on October 20, 1908, said ordinance providing for said election, as adopted on October 5, 1908, and approved October 9, 1908, was duly and legally published as required by the ordinance and the statutes governing such elections, and due allegations thereof are contained in the bill.
The bill further avers that due "resolution was presented for the appointment of managers and returning officers for said election, which resolution was duly and legally adopted"; that there was duly and legally appropriated a sufficient sum of money to pay the expense of conducting the election upon the issue of said bonds; that "on December 15, 1908, at 6 o'clock p.m. a meeting of said city council was held, pursuant to an order of the president thereof given to each member, and at which there were present a quorum authorized to transact business; that at said meeting the votes cast in the election upon the question of the issuance of said bonds were duly and legally canvassed, and upon the opening of the ballot boxes and counting thereof it appeared and was declared that there had been cast in favor of the issue of said $50,000 of bonds for the erection and equipment of a city hospital a majority of 490 votes, and that said election had been conducted in all respects as required by law, and said result was duly and legally declared to be in favor of issuing said bonds."
For reasons which do not appear in the bill and which could not affect the merits of the case, several of the authorized issues of bonds (other than the hospital bonds) were issued pursuant to the authority of law and aforesaid election. The reason why said hospital bonds were not then issued is an immaterial inquiry.
In 1911 the form of government of the city of Montgomery was changed under the general law controlling the municipalities of the state, and since that time the city has been governed by a board of three commissioners. Its said officials are respondents herein. On May 7, 1919, this board of commissioners decided to issue and sell the bonds of the city so authorized, and build and equip a city hospital. This determination of the board of commissioners (respondents in the instant bill) took form on the part of said board of commissioners of the city of Montgomery in the following ordinance:
Section 3 provides that it shall be the duty of the clerk of the city of Montgomery to record the bonds as therein prescribed, etc.
Section 4 ordains:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State Ex Rel. Harrington v. City of Pompano
...and discharged by the newly created corporation the City of Pompano. Broughton v. Pensacola, 93 U.S. 266, 23 L.E.d. 896; Stokes v. Montgomery, 203 Ala. 307, 82 So. 663; Amy v. Selma, 77 Ala. 103; Black Fishburne, 84 S.C. 451, 66 S.E. 681, 19 Ann.Cas. 1104; Girard v. Philadelphia, 7 Wall. 1,......
-
Missouri Elec. Power Co. v. Smith
... ... (1) ... Having registered on October 13, 1932, bonds of City of ... Sullivan in aggregate principal sum of $ 80,000 authorized by ... special election of ... City of Topeka, 41 P.2d 260; Weathers v. Todd ... County, 271 Ky. 172, 111 S.W.2d 638; Stokes v. City ... of Montgomery, 82 So. 663; Covington v ... McInnis, 142 S.E. 650; Jones v ... ...
-
Town of Camden v. Fairbanks, Morse & Co.
... ... indebtedness of a municipality, of the class of Camden, is ... "No city, town, or other municipal corporation having a ... population of less than six thousand, except as ... exceeding one-fourth of the annual revenues of such city or ... town." Const. § 225; Stokes v. City of ... Montgomery, 82 So. 663 ... The ... construction by our court of the ... ...
-
Quaid v. City of Detroit
...River Irrigation & Power District, 37 Ariz. 580, 296 P. 804;Hager v. Board of Education, 254 Ky. 791, 72 S.W.2d 475;Stokes v. City of Montgomery, 203 Ala. 307, 82 So. 663; State ex rel. Boynton v. City of Topeka, 141 Kan. 309, 41 P.2d 260;Nall v. City of Elizabethtown, 200 Ky. 321, 254 S.W.......