City of Sallisaw v. Nesbitt

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

City of Sallisaw v. Nesbitt

1963 OK 59, 380 P.2d 954, 1963 Okla. LEXIS 353

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 12, 1963

Docket40474

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 1963 OK 59 (City of Sallisaw v. Nesbitt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Sallisaw v. Nesbitt, 1963 OK 59, 380 P.2d 954, 1963 Okla. LEXIS 353 (Okla. 1963).

Pincite

Opinions

WELCH, Justice.

Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus against the Attorney General requiring him, as Ex-Officio Bond Commissioner of the State of Oklahoma, to approve two bond issues voted by the people of Sallisaw under the provisions of Sec. 27, Art. 10, Oklahoma Constitution, for the purposes, respectively, of incurring indebtedness by issuing bonds in the sum of $158,000.00 for extending and improving the waterworks system, and incurring indebtedness by issuing bonds in the sum of $101,000.00 for extending and improving the electric system and the electric distribution system, both public utilities to be owned exclusively by said City.

The ground presented by the Attorney General for disapproving the bond issues is that the ballot titles and city ordinances authorizing the election had in connection with said issues did not reveal that, if passed, the revenue derived therefrom would be supplemented with federal grants, and that, therefore, such non-disclosures of a federal grant would contravene Sec. 16, Art. 10, Oklahoma Constitution. The latter provision requires that the purpose for which the money to be borrowed through the bond issues be specified. It is admitted that all proceedings taken preliminary to and in the issuance of each of the subject issues of bonds otherwise complied with the procedures prescribed.

The requirement of Sec. 16, Art. 10 of the Constitution that:

“All laws authorizing the borrowing of money by and on behalf of the State. [956]*956county, or other political subdivision of the State, shall specify the purpose for which the money is to be used, and the money so borrowed shall be used for no other purpose.”

suifers no violence by the word “purpose” being given a meaning distinct from the word “amount” so long as accord be given to the concluding part of said section, to-wit. « * * * and money so borrowed shall be used for no other purpose.”

We expressed that view in Tettleton v. City of Duncan, 200 Okl. 631, 198 P.2d 740, as to a situation where the city had on hand approximately $36,000.00 proceeds from a prior bond issue voted for the purpose of sewer extension, and voted $50,-000.00 for the purpose of sewerage extension without reference to the matter of combining the two amounts in extending the sewerage facilities. Therein we said the fact that a balance existed from an earlier bond issue from which expenditures for a like purpose were contemplated does not indicate that the money from the $50,000.00 issue was to be used for another or different purpose than for which it was borrowed. In syllabus one of such case we held that the issue was not' illegal by reason of the supplementing thereof of funds legally available for the same purpose. Consequently, when there may be contemplated the supplementing of money derived from sale of bonds with federally granted funds without an obligation other than that voted, the absence of mention of such possibility in the ballot titles and city ordinances authorizing the election in connection with such issues does not render the issues illegal and void.

If, as was stated in Town of Nichols Hills v. Williamson, (Okl.) 323 P.2d 733, the city authorities here should use, or attempt to use, the funds derived from the issues for a purpose other than within the limits of the general purpose set forth in the proceedings for which the respective issues were voted the taxpayer is fully protected by Sec. 27, Art. 10, of the Constitution.

While the Attorney General is well within his rights, and is in proper discharge of his duties when he presents this question so that the point could be judicially decided,, yet, we find the bond issues here involved fully merit approval. Therefore it is our duty to require and order that the Attorney General approve both bond issues, and accordingly the writ of mandamus is granted! so requiring such action.

Writ granted.

BLACKBIRD, C. J., and DAVISON,. JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, JACKSON,. IRWIN and BERRY, JJ., concur. SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

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

WELCH, Justice.

Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus against the Attorney General requiring him, as Ex-Officio Bond Commissioner of the State of Oklahoma, to approve two bond issues voted by the people of Sallisaw under the provisions of Sec. 27, Art. 10, Oklahoma Constitution, for the purposes, respectively, of incurring indebtedness by issuing bonds in the sum of $158,000.00 for extending and improving the waterworks system, and incurring indebtedness by issuing bonds in the sum of $101,000.00 for extending and improving the electric system and the electric distribution system, both public utilities to be owned exclusively by said City.

The ground presented by the Attorney General for disapproving the bond issues is that the ballot titles and city ordinances authorizing the election had in connection with said issues did not reveal that, if passed, the revenue derived therefrom would be supplemented with federal grants, and that, therefore, such non-disclosures of a federal grant would contravene Sec. 16, Art. 10, Oklahoma Constitution. The latter provision requires that the purpose for which the money to be borrowed through the bond issues be specified. It is admitted that all proceedings taken preliminary to and in the issuance of each of the subject issues of bonds otherwise complied with the procedures prescribed.

The requirement of Sec. 16, Art. 10 of the Constitution that:

“All laws authorizing the borrowing of money by and on behalf of the State. [956]*956county, or other political subdivision of the State, shall specify the purpose for which the money is to be used, and the money so borrowed shall be used for no other purpose.”

suifers no violence by the word “purpose” being given a meaning distinct from the word “amount” so long as accord be given to the concluding part of said section, to-wit. « * * * and money so borrowed shall be used for no other purpose.”

We expressed that view in Tettleton v. City of Duncan, 200 Okl. 631, 198 P.2d 740, as to a situation where the city had on hand approximately $36,000.00 proceeds from a prior bond issue voted for the purpose of sewer extension, and voted $50,-000.00 for the purpose of sewerage extension without reference to the matter of combining the two amounts in extending the sewerage facilities. Therein we said the fact that a balance existed from an earlier bond issue from which expenditures for a like purpose were contemplated does not indicate that the money from the $50,000.00 issue was to be used for another or different purpose than for which it was borrowed. In syllabus one of such case we held that the issue was not' illegal by reason of the supplementing thereof of funds legally available for the same purpose. Consequently, when there may be contemplated the supplementing of money derived from sale of bonds with federally granted funds without an obligation other than that voted, the absence of mention of such possibility in the ballot titles and city ordinances authorizing the election in connection with such issues does not render the issues illegal and void.

If, as was stated in Town of Nichols Hills v. Williamson, (Okl.) 323 P.2d 733, the city authorities here should use, or attempt to use, the funds derived from the issues for a purpose other than within the limits of the general purpose set forth in the proceedings for which the respective issues were voted the taxpayer is fully protected by Sec. 27, Art. 10, of the Constitution.

While the Attorney General is well within his rights, and is in proper discharge of his duties when he presents this question so that the point could be judicially decided,, yet, we find the bond issues here involved fully merit approval. Therefore it is our duty to require and order that the Attorney General approve both bond issues, and accordingly the writ of mandamus is granted! so requiring such action.

Writ granted.

BLACKBIRD, C. J., and DAVISON,. JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, JACKSON,. IRWIN and BERRY, JJ., concur. SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1963 OK 59, 380 P.2d 954, 1963 Okla. LEXIS 353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-sallisaw-v-nesbitt-okla-1963.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack