Weathers v. Todd County
| Decision Date | 17 December 1937 |
| Parties | WEATHERS et al. v. TODD COUNTY et al. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Todd County.
Action by L. M. Weathers and others, as citizens and taxpayers, for themselves and others similarly situated, against Todd County, Ky. and others, wherein Everett S. Penick filed an intervening petition and was made a party plaintiff. From a judgment dismissing the petition, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
W. B Reeves, Jr., of Elkton, and Taylor & Milam, of Russellville for appellants.
Stites & Stites, of Louisville, J. D. Standard, of Elkton, and Norris McPherson, of Louisville, for appellees.
At a special election, duly called pursuant to the provisions of section 4307 of Baldwin's 1936 Revision of Carroll's Kentucky Statutes, the electorate of Todd county on July 20 1926, voted to issue the bonds of the county to the amount of $300,000, the proceeds to be used for road and bridge purposes. Under the authority thereby conferred the fiscal court on September 1, 1926, issued the county's bonds to the amount of $100,000. On January 1, 1929, a like sum was issued, while a $50,000 issue was made on January 1, 1931, and $33,000 on July 1, 1931, making a total amount of $283,000, with $17,000 of the voted amount unissued. On October 20, 1936, the fiscal court, by appropriate resolution duly passed, proposed to issue bonds of the county for the balance of $17,000 of the original $300,000 voted at the election referred to. Thereafter appellants, as citizens and taxpayers, for themselves and others similarly situated, filed this action against the proper officials of the county to enjoin the issuance of the proposed $17,000 amount of the bonds, on various unsustained grounds, among which was that the authorized issue made by the election had become abandoned by the delay intervening between the last issue and the date of the proposed one for the balance of the amount voted.
The prayer of the petition was to enjoin the issuance for any portion of the $17,000 proposed. The answer of defendants set up in detail all of the actions taken by the fiscal court from the time of the filing of the petition for the election in 1926. It also averred the amount of taxable property within the county for county purposes, and all other sources of revenue of the county at the time the election was held, as well as at the time of all subsequent actions of the fiscal court when bonds were issued, and at the time of the proposal here involved, and from which it clearly appears beyond dispute that at none of them did the amount voted, or the amount issued, exceed the permissible amount contained in section 157a of our Constitution, i.e., "five per centum of the value of the taxable property therein." Neither did the voted amount, plus other indebtedness of the county, exceed that rate at any of the times referred to. After such facts were uncontradictedly proven by the testimony taken, the cause was submitted to the court, followed by judgment dismissing the petition and upholding the right of the county through and by its fiscal court to make and carry out the attacked order to issue the balance of $17,000 of the voted bonds of the county, and this appeal by appellants is from that judgment.
Before the cause was submitted, and, of course, before judgment was rendered, the other appellant, Everett S. Penick, a citizen and taxpayer of the county, filed his intervening petition and asked to be made a party plaintiff to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Missouri Elec. Power Co. v. Smith
... ... Comm., 80 S.W.2d 927; Bryan v. District Trustees of ... District No. 16 Harris County, 254 S.W. 1034; ... Schumacher v. City of Flint, 232 N.W. 406; ... Potter v. Lainhart, 33 So ... Boynton ... v. 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; ... ...
-
Quaid v. City of Detroit
...v. City and County of Denver, 101 Colo. 316, 74 P.2d 99;City of Houston v. McCraw, 131 Tex. 127, 113, S.W.2d 1215;Weathers v. Todd County, 271 Ky. 172, 111 S.W.2d 638. In nine of the above cases the lapse of time between the authorization and the date of the issuance was seven or more years......
-
Long v. Mayo
... ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court, Franklin County ... Action ... by Dennis H. Long against John C. C. Mayo, Jr., and others ... ...
-
Petition of City of St. Louis
...may be issued by any municipality from time to time and in its discretion as necessity therefor arises. In Weathers et al. v. Todd County et al., 271 Ky. 172, 111 S.W.2d 638, the court held that, the fiscal court's delay in issuing the last $17,000 worth of a $300,000 county road and bridge......