City of Marion v. Haynes

164 S.W. 79, 157 Ky. 687, 1914 Ky. LEXIS 373
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedMarch 4, 1914
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 164 S.W. 79 (City of Marion v. Haynes) 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
City of Marion v. Haynes, 164 S.W. 79, 157 Ky. 687, 1914 Ky. LEXIS 373 (Ky. Ct. App. 1914).

Opinion

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Miller

Affirming.

[688]*688This action was brought by, Eobert P. Haynes and other taxpayers of the city of Marion, a city of the fifth class, to enjoin the city and its officers from issuing bonds to the amount of $25,000.00 for the purpose of erecting municipal water works, and bonds to the amount of $20,000.00 for the construction of a system of sewers for said city. All the preliminary steps required by law were complied with; and under two ordinances passed September 9,1913, the questions of issuing the two sets of bonds were submitted to a vote of the people of the municipality. The election showed that 208 votes were cast in favor of the water works proposition, and 100 votes against it; while on the sewer proposition, 211 voters voted for it, and 100 voted against it.

So, it will be seen that of those voting upon the propositions, more than two-third® voted for each proposition.

By an ordinance duly passed, a tax of 62 cents upon each one hundred dollars of the assessed value of the property in said city was levied for the purpose of paying the interest upon said bonds, and creating a sinking-fund which would discharge them within twenty years.

A demurrer to the petition was overruled, and the defendant having declined to further plead, the injunction ,was granted. From that judgment the city appeals.

The plaintiff’s first ground for an injunction is, that there were 405 qualified voters in the town of Marion, two-thirds thereof being 270; and that as each of said propositions received much less than 270 votes, neither received the necessary two-thirds vote required by section 157 of the Constitution.

This question, however, is no longer an open one in this jurisdiction, since it was expressly decided in Montgomery County Fiscal Court v. Trimble, 104 Ky., 629, 42 L. R. A., 738, and in Board of Education v. City of Winchester, 120 Ky., 591 (overruling Belknap v. City of Louisville, 99 Ky., 474), that the assent of two-thirds of those voting- upon the question submitted, was a sufficient approval.

In the next place, it is alleged in the petition, and must ibe treated as true upon the demurrer, that the present tax for maintaining the municipal government, exclusive of the school tax, is sixty cents on each one hundred dollars of taxable property, and that to add thereto the 62 cents authorized! by the ordinance for the purpose of pay[689]*689ing the interest and principal of the proposed bonds, would raise the tax rate to $1.22 per hundred, which is in excess of the rate authorized by sections 157 and 158 of the Constitution.

The briefs advise us that the chancellor rested his decision upon the sole ground that section 157 of the Constitution fixed an arbitrary maximum tax limit of seventy-five cents on each one hundred dollars of taxable property in cities of less than ten thousand population. Appellant stoutly denies that this case is to be controlled solely by section 157, but by section 158 as well; and that when sections 157 and 158 are read together and applied to the facts of this case, the action of appellant is fully warranted by those sections.

Sections 157 and 158 of the Constitution, read as follows:

“157 — The tax rate of cities, towns, counties, taxing districts and other municipalities, for other than school purposes, shall not, at any time, exceed the following .rates upon the value of the taxable property therein, viz.: For all towns or cities having a population of fifteen thousand or more, one dollar and fifty cents on the hundred dollars; for all towns or cities having less than fifteen thousand and not less than ten thousand, one dollar on the hundred dollars; for all towns or cities having less than ten thousand, seventy-five cents on the hundred dollars; and for counties and taxing districts, fifty cents on the hundred dollars; unless it should be necessary to enable such city, town, county, or taxing district to pay the interest on, and provide a sinking fund for the extinction of indebtedness contracted before the adoption of this Constitution. No county, city, town, taxing district, or other municipality shall be authorized or permitted to become indebted, in any manner or for any purpose, to an amount exceeding, in any year, the income and revenue provided for such year, without the assent of two-thirds of the votersi thereof, voting at an. election to be held for that purpose; and any indebtedness contracted in violation of this section shall be void. Nor shall such contract be enforceable by the person with whom made; nor shall such municipality ever be authorized to assume the same.
“158 — The respective cities, towns, counties, taxing districts and municipalities shall not be authorized or permitted to incur indebtedness to an amount, including existing indebtedness, in the aggregate exceeding the fol[690]*690lowing named maximum percentages on the value of the taxable property therein, to be estimated by the assessment next before the last assessment previous to the incurring of the indebtedness, viz.: Cities of the first and second classes, and of the third class having a population exceeding fifteen thousand, ten per centum; cities of the third class having a population of less than fifteen thousand, and cities and towns of the fourth class, five per centum; cities and towns of the fifth and sixth classes, three per centum; and counties, taxing districts and other municipalities, two per centum: Provided, any city, town, county, taxing district or other municipality may contract an indebtedness in excess of such limitations when the same has been authorized under laws in force prior to the adoption of this Constitution, or when necessary for the completion of and payment for a public improvement undertaken and not completed and paid for at the time of the adoption of this Constitution: And provided further, If, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, the aggregate indebtedness, bonded or floating, of any city, town, county, taxing district or other municipality, including that which it has been or may be authorized to contract as herein provided, shall exceed the limit herein prescribed, then no such city or town shall be authorized or permitted to increase its indebtedness in an amount exceeding two per centum, and no such county, taxing district or other municipality, in an amount exceeding one per centum, in the aggregate upon the value of the taxable property therein, to be ascertained as herein provided, until the aggregate of its indebtedness shall have been reduced below the limit herein fixed, and thereafter it shall not exceed the limit, unless in ease of emergency, the public health or safety should so require. Nothing herein shall prevent the issue of renewal bonds, or bonds to fund the floating indebtedness of any city, town, county, taxing district or other municipality.”

Marion is a city of the fifth class, and under section 3637, subsection 3, of the Kentucky Statutes, it is given power “to levy and collect annually an ad valorem tax, not exceeding seventy-five cents on each one hundred dollars of the assessed value of all real and personal property within such city, except, as hereinafter provided: Provided, That any time the city council shall deem it necessary to incur any indebtedness, the payment of which cannot be met by the levy authoried by law, they [691]

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

Related

Biery v. City of Lima
255 N.E.2d 855 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1969)
Rodgers v. Crittenden County
337 S.W.2d 728 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1960)
Magoffin County v. Rigsby
303 S.W.2d 545 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1957)
Hill v. City of Pineville
235 S.W.2d 776 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1951)
Fulton County Fiscal Court v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.
146 S.W.2d 15 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1940)
Glass v. Bd. of Com. Coun. of City of Frankfort
90 S.W.2d 700 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1936)
Kentucky Utilities Co. v. Ginsberg
72 S.W.2d 738 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1934)
Buckner v. Board of Education of Owensboro City School District
34 S.W.2d 236 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1930)
Hurst v. City of Millersburg
294 S.W. 788 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1927)
Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City v. Woodworth
1923 OK 135 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Wilkerson v. City of Lexington
222 S.W. 74 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1920)
City of Winchester v. Nelson
193 S.W. 1040 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1917)
Bird v. Asher
186 S.W. 663 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
164 S.W. 79, 157 Ky. 687, 1914 Ky. LEXIS 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-marion-v-haynes-kyctapp-1914.