Burkholder v. City of Louisville

276 S.W.2d 29
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedMarch 4, 1955
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 276 S.W.2d 29 (Burkholder v. City of Louisville) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Burkholder v. City of Louisville, 276 S.W.2d 29 (Ky. Ct. App. 1955).

Opinion

WADDILL, Commissioner.

This is an appeal from a judgment validating a proposed issue of revenue bonds by the City of Louisville to ' finance improvements and additions to its waterworks system pursuant to the provisions of KRS, Chapter -58. Since the appellants, who were made parties defendant in this declaratory judgment action as representatives of the citizens, taxpayers and holders of general obligation bonds of the City of Louisville, have raised 'several questions concerning the legality of this fiscal adventure by the City, it is necessary, in order to consider and pass upon their objections, to look into the history of the Louisville Water Company to determine its present legal status with reference to whether the City has the right to fiscalize its water system under the provisions of KRS, Chapter 58.

On March 6, 1854, the legislature passed a special act creating a private corporation designated as the Louisville Water Company, which, under its charter, was au[30]*30thorized to construct and operate a water system. Since the date of its creation it has been the only company engaged in furnishing water to Louisville and its inhabitants. Between the date this company was organized and the year 1895, the City of Louisville purchased all its stock which it still owns. In 1902 the legislature provided, in what is now KRS 91.150(6), that this stock should be a resource of the City’s sinking fund. KRS 91.150 reads, in part, as follows:

“(1) The sinking fund shall be under the control and management of the commissioners of the sinking fund, and shall be held and sacredly used for the payment of the principal and interest of the bonded debt of the city. The board of aldermen may not pass ordinances to diminish the assets of the sinking fund until all of the debts of the city chargeable to the sinking fund ¿re paid, but may pass ordinances to increase the assets of the fund.
“(3) The entire income of the fund shall each year be set apart and applied to the payment of the interest and principal of all debts charged or chargeable to the fund, and to the cost of administration of the fund, and to no other use or purpose until the whole of the debts of the city are fully paid and satisfied, including the present and any future indebtedness of the city.
“(4) All bonds that constitute obligations of a city of the first class shall be made a charge upon the sinking fund of the city, except that no bonds shall ■be made a charge upon the sinking fund unless sufficient provision has been made, at the time of issuing the bonds or at the time of the charge, for the payment of interest and principal of the bonds. Bonds of the city made a charge upon the sinking’fund shall be placed with and sold by the commissioners of the sinking fund,, except as otherwise provided by law.
“(6) Any stock owned by the city in the Louisville Water Company shall be a part of the resources of the sinking fund of the city.”

In 1906 the legislature enacted what is presently KRS 96.230 through 96.310, establishing the Board of Waterworks of the City of Louisville, and awarded to this Board the possession, control and management of the property of the Louisville Water Company. This statute in pertinent part, reads:

“96.230.
“Whenever any city.of the first class owns, through its commissioners of the sinking fund, all the shares of capital stock in any corporation engaged in supplying water to the city and its inhabitants, the city shall control, manage and operate the plant of the corporation, its franchise, and all its other property, in the manner provided in KRS 96.240 to 96.310. The provisions of KRS 96.230 to 96.310 shall not affect the status of the stock as part of the assets of the sinking fund.”
■ “96.260.
“The board of waterworks shall be vested with all the authority and privileges, exercise all the franchises, and have possession, control and management of all the property, of the corporation of which the city owns all the stock. It may make contracts and sue and be sued, but only in the name of the corporation.”
“96.300.
“The board of waterworks may borrow money in an amount not to exceed ■ the gross receipts for the current year, for the purpose of meeting any of the obligations of the waterworks corporation and for current expenses of the board. In addition, whenever the board deems it expedient to provide for the refunding of any outstanding bonds of the waterworks corporation or the funding- of its floating indebtedness, and after the commissioners of the. sinking , fund have by resolution [31]*31consented, the board may issue for ' either or both of those purposes the bonds of the waterworks corporation not to exceed in amount one million five hundred thousand dollars, and may secure the bonds by a mortgage upon the rights, privileges, franchises and property of the corporation. * * * The total bonded debt upon the property outstanding at any time shall not exceed one million five hundred thousand dollars.”

During the years of these events the legal title to the physical properties of the water system was vested in the Louisville Water Company. In order to avoid the levy of ad valorem taxes, in 1908 the Louisville Water Company deeded all its property to the city of Louisville. The validity of this .transfer of property was approved by this Court in Ryan v. City of Louisville, 133 Ky. 714, 118 S.W. 992.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Phelps v. Louisville Water Co.
103 S.W.3d 46 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2003)
City of Bowling Green v. Board of Education
443 S.W.2d 243 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1969)
Valla v. Preston Street Road Water District 1 of Jefferson County
395 S.W.2d 772 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1965)
Davis v. Water-Sewer & Sanitation Commission
223 F. Supp. 902 (W.D. Kentucky, 1963)
Grimm v. Moloney
358 S.W.2d 496 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
276 S.W.2d 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burkholder-v-city-of-louisville-kyctapp-1955.