Thomason v. Court of County Com'rs

• Citation: 184 Ala. 28,63 So. 87
• Parties: THOMASON v. COURT OF COUNTY COM'RS et al.
• Decision Date: 30 June 1913
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

63 So. 87

184 Ala. 28

THOMASON v. COURT OF COUNTY COM'RS et al.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 30, 1913

Appeal from Chancery Court, Marshall County; W.H. Simpson Chancellor.

Action by James M. Thomason against the Court of County Commissioners and others. From a judgment for the defendants plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The order calling the election is as follows: "It is ordered by the court that an election is hereby called to be held at the several precincts of the county at the regular voting places in such several precincts; said election is hereby ordered to be held on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the determination by the voters of the county whether or not this court shall issue bonds in behalf of the county for the purpose of constructing, improving, and repairing the public roads of the county, the amount of the bonds to be issued to be $130,000, the maximum rate of interest to be paid to be 5 per cent., and the bonds to run for a period of 30 years, and not to be sold for less than face value." The notice followed the order calling the election. The ballot is as follows:

OFFICIAL BALLOT.

Vote for One.

[ ] For Road Bond Issue.

[ ] Against Road Bond Issue.

John A Lusk & Son, of Guntersville, for appellant.

Street & Isbell and Mack Killcrease, all of Guntersville, for appellees.

DOWDELL C.J.

This is a bill by a taxpayer to enjoin the issuance of bonds for the purpose of constructing, "repairing, and improving" public roads in the county of Marshall. The temporary injunction prayed for was denied and a demurrer sustained to the bill. From this action of the court, the present appeal is prosecuted.

Only two questions are presented by the record for our consideration. The first is that the ballot furnished failed to meet the requirements of the law in stating the character of the bonds to be voted for. The second is that the order for, as well as the notice of, the election contained provisions not authorized by law, that is, for repairing and improving, as well as for constructing; the order being for "constructing, repairing, and improving" the public roads of said county. In all other respects it is not denied by counsel for appellant, and the bill shows the proceedings for the issuance of the bonds were regular.

As to the first proposition, the ballot which was furnished was as is prescribed by the statute, unless it can be said that the character of the bond to be voted for was insufficiently stated in the blank space in the prescribed ballot. Section 161, Code of 1907; Constitution, section 222.

It is contended by appellant that the amount of the bonds, the interest, and when the same should mature, should have been stated on the face of the ballot....