Burlington Water Co. v. Woodward

49 Iowa 58
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedJune 13, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 49 Iowa 58 (Burlington Water Co. v. Woodward) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Burlington Water Co. v. Woodward, 49 Iowa 58 (iowa 1878).

Opinion

Seevers, J.

The ordinance is quite lengthy, and among other things provides that the cost of the water-works shall not exceed two hundred thousand dollars, and that the plans and specifications thereof shall be approved by the city council. The length of the mains and number of hydrants are prescribed, and provision is made for the right of way. The quantity of water to be furnished daily, and the number of streams, and height to be thrown in case of fire, are fixed. All that portion of the city which lies within the limits of the benefits or protection of the water-works constitutes the water district, which may be changed from time to time by the city council. A special tax of five mills on the dollar must be annually levied on the taxable property in said district, which, together with the earnings of the company derived from individuals using the water, constitutes the water fund, and such tax cannot be diminished until a certain surplus is found to exist. The company is authorized to issue its bonds for an amount not exceeding two hundred thousand dollars, to be secured by a mortgage on the water-works. They are to bear interest at’ six per cent, and be payable within fifty years. -The bonds are to be sold at par, unless the city council consent they may be sold for less. The capital stock of the company is fixed at three hundred thousand dollars, of which no more than ten per cent is to be paid unless required by the provisions of the ordinance or some court of competent jurisdiction. The interest on the bonds must be first paid out of the water fund by the city directly to the bondholders, and then there shall be paid from said fund two thousand dollars per annum, which [60]*60must be appropriated to purchasing bonds for cancellation or a sinking fund constituted therewith.

The expenses and taxes of the company are to be next paid out of the water fund, and lastly there is to be paid from said fund not exceeding twelve per cent per annum on the amount actually paid on the capital stock of the company, provided such amount did not exceed thirty thousand dollars. In case more than that amount was paid in only eight per cent per annum was to be paid on whatever amount there might be in excess of thirty thousand dollars. If the water fund for any year should prove insufficient to pay the charges aforesaid, the deficiency is to be paid out of any surplus there might be in any subsequent year, and if said fund should prove more than sufficient for the purposes aforesaid, the surplus is to be added to the sinking fund or applied to the purpose of extending the works, and if necessary for the purpose of extension a new series of bonds, secured by a second mortgage, may be issued by the company. As soon as the financial condition of the city will permit it to purchase and control the works, the city has the right to do so upon assuming the duties and liabilities of the company, and the franchise is thereby terminated. A sufficient quantity of water is to be furnished for private consumption, and also for city purposes. For the former a reasonable charge is to be made, and the books of the company are to be open to the inspection of the city council. Section 20 of the ordinance is as follows:

“Sec. 20. It is intended by this ordinance that the said company shall make an annual net dividend of twelve per cent upon all the cash actually paid in upon their stock, and no more, as hereinbefore provided. But they must rely for the means of making such dividend entirely upon the water fund aforesaid; nothing for this purpose, or for defraying any of the other expenses connected with said water-works, shall ever be payable out of the proceeds of the general taxation in said city. But the special tax hereinbefore provided for shall [61]*61novel- be so far diminished as to prevent the annual dividend of twelve per cent by said company upon the cash payments on their stock, as hereinbefore contemplated, and a certificate shall bo indorsed upon each of the bonds issued as aforesaid, stating the present assessed value of all the property upon which said special tax is to be annually levied, together with a stipulation that from the said water fund the city will pay the semi-annual interest upon said bonds, and also the sum of two thousand dollars annually into the sinking fund, before any money shall be taken out of the said water fund for any other purpose. This indorsement shall be subscribed by the mayor of the city, and authenticated by the seal of said city, and thus create an irrepealable obligation in favor of ihe holders of those bonds respectively.”

We have quoted largely from the ordinance because it, in fact, constitutes the contract.

1. municipal corporation: limit or indebtness: water-works. The Constitution provides as follows: “No county, or other political or municipal corporation, shall be allowed to become indebted in any manner, or for any purpose, to an , , t a , amount m tiie aggregate exceeding live per centum _ « , , ... . on tiie value or the taxable property witlnn such county or corporation, to be ascertained by the last State and county tax list previous to incurring such indebtedness.” Article XI, § 3, Code, 787.

It is provided by statute that cities have the power to erect water-works, or authorize the erection of the same, and where such authority is granted to "individuáis or a corporation, the city may authorize a charge for the use of the water, to be collected of the individuals using the same; and a special tax not exceeding five mills on the dollar, in any year, in addition to all other taxes, may be levied for the purpose of paying the expenses and operating the works, and which tax, with the water rents, shall be sufficient for that purpose. Code, §§ 471, 472, 473, 474, 475.

The constitutionality of this statute is not assailed. The authority, therefore, to pass the ordinance is undoubted,unless [62]*62the indebtedness beyond the constitutional limit renders it void. Tlie material and only question, therefore, is whether an indebtedness was thereby created within the constitutional inhibition.

It is believed the constitution applies not only to a present indebtedness, but also to sueli as is payable on a contingency at some future day, or which depends on some contingency before a liability is created. But it must appear such contingency is sure to take place irrespective of any action taken or option exercised by the city in the future. That is, if a present indebtedness is incurred or obligations assumed which, without further action on the part of the city, have the effect to create an indebtedness at some future day, such are within the inhibition of the constitution.

But, if the fact of indebtedness depends upon some act of the city, or upon its volition to be exorcised or determined at some future day, then no present indebtedness is incurred, and none will be until the period arrives, and the required act or option is exercised, and from that time only can it be said there exists an indebtedness.

Now the ordinance expressly provides that the city may purchase the works as soon as its financial condition will permit. But this provision cannot have the effect to create a present or future indebtedness, and without serious doubt was agreed upon in view of the present financial condition of the city.

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

Related

Fults v. City of Coralville
666 N.W.2d 548 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 2003)
Opinion to the Governor
308 A.2d 802 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1973)
City of Phoenix v. PHOENIX CIVIC AUD. & CON. CENT.
408 P.2d 818 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1965)
Wickey v. Muscatine County
46 N.W.2d 32 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1951)
Trepp v. Independent School District
240 N.W. 217 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1932)
Cochran v. Mayor of Middletown
125 A. 459 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1924)
Anderson v. International School District No. 5
156 N.W. 54 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1915)
Rogers v. Oklahoma City
1914 OK 589 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Haskins & Sells v. Oklahoma City
1912 OK 362 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Lamboglia v. School Board of Guayama
13 P.R. 51 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1907)
Lamboglia v. Junta Escolar de Guayama
13 P.R. Dec. 52 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1907)
Bailey v. City of Sioux Falls
103 N.W. 16 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1905)
Marion Water Co. v. City of Marion
96 N.W. 883 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1903)
Grunewald v. City of Cedar Rapids
91 N.W. 1059 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1902)
Swanson v. City of Ottumwa
59 L.R.A. 620 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1902)
Fidelity Trust & Guaranty Co. v. Fowler Water Co.
113 F. 560 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana, 1902)
Windsor v. City of Des Moines
81 N.W. 476 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1900)
City of Helena v. Mills
94 F. 916 (Ninth Circuit, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 Iowa 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burlington-water-co-v-woodward-iowa-1878.