Wilder v. Board of County Com'rs, Rio Grande County
| Decision Date | 24 February 1890 |
| Citation | 41 F. 512 |
| Parties | WILDER v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS RIO GRANDE COUNTY. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
J. L Jerome, for plaintiff.
Ira J Bloomfield and D. J. Burns, for defendant.
This is an action to recover the sum of 15 county warrants issued by the defendant in payment of certain judgments. Section 527 Gen. St. Colo., provides that, upon a judgment against a board of county commissioners, no execution shall be issued but the same shall be collected by a tax; and then there is the following proviso: 'That nothing in this section shall prohibit the county commissioners from paying such judgments by a warrant upon the county treasury. ' The warrants upon which this suit is founded were issued under this section, and probably they are of the same force and effect as the judgments to which they refer. Defendant answers:
'That at the time of the rendition of the said several judgments in the complaint specified, and the issuance of the warrants herein sued upon, in part payment of the same, the aggregate amount of the indebtedness of the said Rio Grande county for all purposes, exclusive of the debts contracted prior to the adoption of the present constitution of the state of Colorado, exceeded six dollars for each one thousand dollars of assessed valuation of the taxable property of said county; and that the question of incurring such indebtedness, or of any indebtedness whatever, on the part of said county, had at no time prior to the rendition of said several judgments, or to the issuance of the said warrants in payment thereof, been submitted to the qualified electors of said county at a general election, or at any election, or in any manner whatsoever; nor was the said indebtedness upon which the said several judgments were based, for which the warrants sued upon were issued in part payment, or any part thereof, contracted for the purpose of erecting necessary public buildings, or for making or repairing public roads or bridges.'
And plaintiff demurs to the answer on the ground that defendant is concluded of any such defense by the judgments upon which the warrants were issued.
In the Lake County Cases, 130 U.S. 662, 674, 9 S.Ct. 651, 654, the supreme court held that section 6, art. 11, of the state constitution, is a limitation of the powers of the legislature and of the countries in the state to create indebtedness in excess of the amounts therein specified, and all debts and contracts over and above the amount therein mentioned are void. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association v. Farmer
...such as to estop it to allege the non-payment, if such were the fact. 22 A. 665; 80 N.Y. 108; 15 N.W. 453; A. 2; 53 Ark. 494; 96 U.S. 577; 41 F. 512; 95 U.S. 326. The evidence shows that was no breach of warranty by failure of assured to fully and truly answer questions in application. Ther......
-
The State ex rel. Clark County v. Hackmann
... ... Constitution, ... sec. 12, art. 10; State ex rel. v. Wilder, 197 Mo ... 1; Barnard & Co. v. Knox Co., 105 Mo. 382; Mt ... Abbott on Public ... Securities, sec. 209, p. 431; Board of Commrs. v. Aetna ... Ins. Co., 90 F. 222; Maish v. Ariz. Ter., 164 ... ...
-
Howard v. City of Huron
... ... of any county, city, town, school district or other ... Wilder v. Commissioners, 41 ... F. 512) that should be ... State ... v. Acting Board of Aldermen, 1 S. C. 31; State v ... Weld, ... ...
-
Osborne v. Olustee Sch. Dist. No. 35, of Greer Cnty.
...65 N.W. 17; Heffleman v. Pennington Co. (S.D.) 52 N.W. 851; Board v. Standley (Colo.) 49 P. 23; People v. Board (Colo.) 52 P. 748; Wilder v. Board, 41 F. 512. S. B. Garrett and A. G. Garrett, for defendant in error. KANE, C. J. ¶1 This was an action commenced in the district court of Greer ......