Wicks v. Salt Lake City
Decision Date | 14 June 1922 |
Docket Number | 3808 |
Citation | 208 P. 538,60 Utah 265 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | WICKS v. SALT LAKE CITY et al |
Original proceedings by E. B. Wicks against Salt Lake City and others to prohibit such City from issuing certain special improvement bonds for a lighting district.
Temporary writ of prohibition QUASHED, and permanent writ DENIED.
C. W Boyd, of Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.
Wm. H Folland, City Atty., of Salt Lake City, for defendants.
Plaintiff seeks by this proceeding to prohibit Salt Lake City and its officers from issuing certain special improvement bonds for lighting district No. 6, as contemplated in a certain resolution adopted by the board of commissioners of said city.
Lighting district No. 6 of Salt Lake City covers and includes all of the abutting property on both sides of State street between South Temple and Fourth South streets. The improvement contemplated within the district is the erecting, constructing, and installing of the necessary ornamental standards and luminous are lights for the purpose of lighting said street.
It is conceded by the plaintiff that the proceedings relating to said district and the contemplated improvement thereof prior to the adoption of the resolution authorizing the city auditor to issue and deliver the bonds in question were regular and according to law, but it is contended by plaintiff that the auditor is without power or authority to issue said bonds because of the following paragraph contained therein:
Plaintiff is a resident of Salt Lake City and a property owner in District No. 6 and challenges the right of said city, and the auditor thereof, to issue said bonds incumbered with the paragraph heretofore quoted for the reason that it attempts to impose an obligation upon the city which is beyond its constitutional power to discharge.
Plaintiff concedes the right of the city to issue its negotiable coupon bonds for the purpose of raising money with which to make improvements by installing such lighting system, provided such money is raised exclusively from the levy and assessment of special taxes upon the property adjacent to or abutting upon the street benefited by such improvement. The objection, however, is that by the issuing of said bonds containing the objectionable paragraph referred to the city threatens to either levy a general tax for the payment of such bonds, if necessary, or to pay the same, and the interest thereon, from the general fund of the city.
The provision in the bond providing for a special improvement guaranty fund to which objection is made by plaintiff is expressly authorized by legislative enactment. See Session Laws 1921, c. 9. The act is deemed of sufficient importance to quote at length:
It is contended by plaintiff that the city has no power to create a special guaranty fund for the payment of said bonds or the interest thereon or to levy a general tax in any amount for said purpose or to pay the same from the general fund. In short, it is contended that the city has no right to pledge the taxing power of the city for said purpose without submitting the question to the qualified electors of the city for their determination.
The validity of sections 1 and 5 of the act just quoted are challenged as being in conflict with article 1, § 7, of the state Constitution, which provides:
"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."
The gist of plaintiff's contention is illustrated by the following excerpt from the brief of his able counsel:
"We think it cannot be successfully maintained that the establishment of the lighting district is in reality for a 'public purpose.' Practically the only persons materially benefited are those owning property adjacent to or abutting upon the street along which the lighting district extends, and hence a general levy of taxes throughout the city for the purpose of establishing and maintaining such lighting district would violate the provisions of the Constitution above quoted. Why should A., whose property lies wholly without the lighting district, be compelled to pay...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The Best Foods, Inc. v. Christensen
... ... Appeal ... from District Court, Third District, Salt Lake County; D. W ... Moffat, Judge ... Consolidated ... Badger, ... Rich & Rich, of Salt Lake City, for respondents ... ELIAS ... HANSEN, J. CHERRY, C. J., and ... City v. Holman et al., 59 Utah 242, 202 P ... 1096; Wicks v. Salt Lake City et al., 60 ... Utah 265, 208 P. 538; State v ... ...
-
Oregon Short Line Railroad Company v. Berg
...at that time by reason of the increased value of the bonds." So, also, has the supreme court of Utah approved the law in Wicks v. Salt Lake City, 60 Utah 265, 208 P. 538, and in Deseret Savings Bank v. Francis, 62 Utah 217 P. 1114, the court upheld the law, both prospectively and retrospect......
-
City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Civic Auditorium & Convention Center Ass'n, Inc.
...a violation of debt limitation provisions of state constitutions. Banner v. City of Laramie, 74 Wyo. 429, 289 P.2d 922; Wicks v. Salt Lake City, 60 Utah 265, 208 P. 538. The presumption of validity which attaches to acts of the legislature does not apply, at least with full force, to the or......
-
Marks v. City of Mandan
...including the following: State ex rel. Bowman v. Board of Commissioners et al., 124 Ohio St. 174, 177 N.E. 271;Wicks v. Salt Lake City et al., 60 Utah 265, 208 P. 538;Comfort et al. v. City of Tacoma et al., 142 Wash. 249, 252 P. 929;Crescent City v. Moran, 25 Cal.App.2d 133, 77 P.2d 281;Di......