Taxpayers and Citizens of Lawrence County v. Lawrence County, 8 Div. 97
Decision Date | 12 July 1962 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 97 |
Citation | 273 Ala. 638,143 So.2d 813 |
Parties | TAXPAYERS AND CITIZENS OF LAWRENCE COUNTY v. LAWRENCE COUNTY et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Thos. C. Pettus, County Sol., Moulton, and J. O. Sentell, Jr., Montgomery, for appellants.
R. L. Almon, Moulton, Harry R. Teel, Wm. Alfred Rose and White, Bradley, Arant, All & Rose, Birmingham, for appellees.
This is a warrant validation proceeding brought in the circuit court of Lawrence County, in equity, by Lawrence County and its governing body, the Board of Revenue of said county, appellees here, against the taxpayers and citizens of said county, appellants here, under the provisions of Code 1940, Tit. 7, §§ 169 to 176, as amended. The appeal is from a decree validating the warrants. Our conclusion is that the decree is due to be affirmed.
The question of paramount concern is whether the Board of Revenue has authority to issue the proposed refunding warrants. Another point insisted on relates to the trial court's finding that the issuance of such refunding warrants does not constitute constructive fraud.
The warrants are designated in the Board's authorizing resolution as 'State Gasoline Tax Anticipation Refunding Warrants, Series 1961A,' and are in the aggregate principal amount of $1,175,000. They are to be issued in exchange for outstanding warrants of the same amount maturing prior to the year 1968, on a warrant-for-warrant basis. The refunding warrants, like those outstanding, are payable, both as to principal and interest, solely out of the county's distributive portion (under Code 1940, Tit. 51, §§ 655 and 657, as amended) of the gasoline tax levied by the state (under Code 1940, Tit. 51, § 647, as amended) and are not general obligations of the county. No question is presented as to the validity of the outstanding warrants. The refunding warrants are to be in the denomination of $1,000 each (as are the outstanding warrants), to be numbered consecutively from 1 to 1,175, inclusive, to be dated October 1, 1961, and a portion thereof are to mature in each of the years 1970 through 1980 with the first date of maturity being April 1, 1970, and the last April 1, 1980.
The outstanding warrants were issued at various times between August 15, 1952, and April 1, 1959, for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and improving public roads and bridges in the county. With respect to the refunding warrants, the Board, in its authorizing resolution, included, among its findings and determinations, the following:
Code 1940, Tit. 23, § 43, Act No. 729, appvd. Sept. 17, 1953, Acts 1953, Vol. II, p. 984, provides that the governing bodies of the several counties of the state 'have general superintendence of the public roads, bridges and ferries within their respective counties so as to render travel over the same as safe and convenient as practicable'; that 'to this end they have legislative, judicial, and executive powers, except as limited in this chapter'; that they 'are courts of unlimited jurisdiction and powers as to the construction, maintenance and improvement of the public roads, bridges and ferries in their respective counties, except as their jurisdiction or powers may be limited by the local or special statutes of the state'; and that they may 'make and enter into such contracts as may be necessary, or as may be deemed necessary or abvisable by such courts, or boards, to build, construct, make, improve and maintain a good system of public roads, bridges and ferries in their respective counties.' It also provides that 'no contract for the construction or repair of any public roads, bridge or bridges, shall be made where the payment of the contract price for such work shall extend over a period of more than twenty years.'
It has been held that warrants payable solely from a county's distributive part of the state gasoline tax 'do not fall within any constitutional prohibition' (Isbell v. Shelby County, 235 Ala. 571, 573, 180 So. 567, 569; Lyon v. Shelby County, 235 Ala. 69, 71, 177 So. 306; Herbert v. Perry, 235 Ala. 71, 72, 177 So. 561; In re Opinion of the Justices, 230 Ala. 673, 163 So. 105), and are not bonds or debts of the county (Littlejohn v. Littlejohn, 195 Ala. 614, 617, 71 So. 448; Cochran v. Marshall County, 242 Ala. 314, 319, 6 So.2d 489). Accordingly, whether the refunding warrants may be issued depends upon whether the legislature has given the county authority to that end.
This court has held that a county's governing body, under the provisions of § 43, Tit. 23, supra, can contract for payment of the cost of constructing, improving, and maintaining roads and bridges by issuing interest bearing warrants payable solely out of the county's distributive part of the state gasoline tax, and that such warrants are not prohibited by the county financial control act (Code 1940, Tit. 12, Chap. 6, § 78). Cochran v. Marshall County, 242 Ala. 314, 6 So.2d 489, supra; Isbell v. Shelby County, 235 Ala. 571, 180 So. 567, supra.
Our real problem is to determine, first, whether there is authority for issuing refunding warrants of the character here involved and, second, if so, whether the maturity dates of some of such refunding warrants may be fixed at a time more than twenty years after issuance of the outstanding warrants for which they are to be exchanged.
Appellees...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Gallion v. Graham, 1 Div. 996
... ... title to forty acres of land in Baldwin County against respondent, A. B. Case, alleging that the ... ...
- Mcdaniel v. Helmerich & Payne Int'l Drilling Co.
-
Smitherman v. Marshall County Com'n
...a final decision, subject, of course, to limited, deferential review on the ultimate issue. See Taxpayers & Citizens of Lawrence County v. Lawrence County, 273 Ala. 638, 143 So.2d 813 (1962).... [T]he only statutory authority county commissions have regarding claims against a county for the......
-
Pinckard v. State Bd. of Ed.
...of Montgomery, 228 Ala. 687, 155 So. 366; Kendrick v. City of Birmingham, 242 Ala. 112, 5 So.2d 82; Taxpayers and Citizens of Lawrence County v. Lawrence County, 273 Ala. 638, 143 So.2d 813; and Dodson v. Beaird, 237 Ala. 587, 187 So. Appellant argues that moneys on deposit in the various f......