Harding v. Board of Supervisors

237 N.W. 625, 213 Iowa 560
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedJune 20, 1931
DocketNo. 40971.
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 237 N.W. 625 (Harding v. Board of Supervisors) 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
Harding v. Board of Supervisors, 237 N.W. 625, 213 Iowa 560 (iowa 1931).

Opinions

Wagner, J.

The plaintiff, in his petition, alleges that he is a resident, citizen, and real estate owner and taxpayer of Osceola County, and has been for many years last past; that he brings this action for and on behalf of himself and numerous other residents, citizens, real estate owners, and taxpayers of said county, who have like interest in said cause. The defendants constitute the Board of Supervisors, the County Auditor and County Treasurer of said county. The plaintiff asks that the defendant-officers be enjoined from issuing primary road bonds in the sum of $800,000.00 authorized by the voters of Osceola County at the general election held on November 4, 1930. The grounds upon which he asks that an injunction be issued are: (1) that, subsequent to the election, the State Highway *562 Commission materially changed and relocated Primary Road No. 9, and that the defendants are wrongfully proposing to use said bond issue to pave said relocated road, and that said action would.constitute a wrongful diversion of said funds; and (2) that said bond issue is illegal and void because of the inadequacy of the provisions for paying the interest and principal of said bonds. The defendants deny the allegations which the plaintiff alleges entitle him to an injunction, and certain parties have intervened, joining the defendants in the action. The plaintiff alleges in his petition, and the defendants and interveners admit in their answer, that the primary road system of Osceola County was established under Chapter 237 of the Acts of the 38th G-. A.; that up to and including the time of the matters complained of, the following roads constituted the primary road system of Osceola County, to wit:

"Primary Road No. 21, crossing said County from south to north about eleven miles east of the west line of said County.
"Primary Road No. 9, crossing said County from east to west as. follows, to wit: Beginning on the east line of said County at the intersection of the south line of Section Twenty-four (24) of Fairview Township; thence west two miles; thence south one mile on the east line of Section Twenty-seven (27) of Fairview Township; thence west five miles to the northeast corner,of Section Thirty-five (35),-in Horton Township; thence south one mile along the east line of said Section; thence west one half mile along the south line of said Section; thence south tjirough the town of Ocheyedan two miles to a point on the center of the north line of Section Fourteen (14) of Ocheyedan Township; thence west about sixteen and one half miles on the section line through Sibley, the county seat of said County, to the.west line of Osceola County.”

No. 9, hereinbefore described, ran through the towns of Harris, Ocheyedan and Sibley. The fair inferences from the record are that in the summer of 1930, the State Highway Commission relocated, or contemplated relocating, that portion of Nd. 9 beginning on the east line of the county at the southeast corner of Section 24, in Fairview Township, and terminating at-the southeast corner of Section 35, in Horton Township, by substituting therefor the following: Beginning at the southeast *563 corner of Section 36, in Fairview Township, and running straight west to the southeast corner of Section 35, in Horton Township, and by putting in a stub or spur leading thereto from the town of Harris, and that the grading, or a major portion thereof, upon the substituted portion of said road was completed before the general election in 1930. It will be observed that, at the time of said election, no change as to designation or location of the remainder of No. 9 had been made. At the general election in November, 1930, there was submitted to the voters of said County the following proposition:

“Shall the Board of Supervisors be authorized to issue bonds from year to year, in the aggregate amount not exceeding-eight hundred thousand dollars, for the purpose of providing the funds for draining, grading and hard surfacing the primary roads of the county, and to levy a tax on all property in the county from year to year not exceeding five mills in any one year, for the payment of the principal and interest of said bonds, provided, however, that the annual allotments to the county of the primary road fund shall be used to pay interest and retire said bonds as they mature, and only such portion of said tax shall be levied, from year to year as may be necessary to meet any deficiency, if any, between the amount of the interest and principal of the bonds and the said allotments from the primary road funds?” (Writer’s italics.)

Said proposition carried by a vote of 1,400 in favor of, to 905 against, the proposition. Shortly after the election, surveys were started by the Commission on proposed Primary 33, leading from the south side of the County, through Ashton to Sibley,' and also upon what we shall term New No. 9, leading from the center of the south line of Section 35, in Horton Township, thence west to the east side of the C., St. P., M. & O. R. R., thence southwesterly along the east side of said railroad and substantially parallel therewith to the city of Sibley, and by putting in a spur leading from said east and west road to the, town of Ocheyedan. On February 3d the Highway Commission-sent for signature to the Board of Supervisors a proposed contract, by which it was proposed to pave Primary Road No. 9 from the Dickinson County line on the east, to the Lyon County line on the west, ‘ ‘ a distance of approximately 26 miles. ’ ’ This *564 contract was not signed by tbe Board of Supervisors. On February 18th a resolution was passed by the Highway Commission and communicated to the Board of Supervisors, requesting the issuance of bonds to pay for the paving on Primary Road No. 9 from Sibley to the Dickinson County line. On March 2d a proposed new contract was forwarded by the State Highway Commission to the Board of Supervisors for signature. In this latter contract, the Highway Commission, for the first time, disclosed its purpose to use the proceeds of the bonds to pave what we have hereinbefore termed new No. 9 between Ocheyedan and Sibley, two miles north of where No. 9 was located at the time of the election. Said contract contains the following provision:

"Whereas the Iowa State Highway Commission now proposes to pave Primary Road No. 9 from a point on the Osceola-Dickinson County line, near the S. E. corner of Section 36, Township 100 North, Range 39 West, thence west, substantially following the section line to the east side of the C., St. P., M. & O. R. R., near the south quarter corner of Section 31, Township 100 North, Range 41 West, thence southwesterly along the east side of said railroad and substantially parallel thereto to the north corporation line of the City of Sibley, a distance of approximately 20 miles.”

It appears that the Board at first refused to sign this proposed contract, but after mandamus proceedings had been begun, — or threatened, — the Board did sign the same. The contract calls for the issuance of bonds in the amount of $600,000.00 for said contemplated improvement. A stay order has been issued by this court to maintain the status quo until the determination of this appeal.

The situation as to the primary roads of the county is shown by the accompanying map. No. 21 and what we shall term old No.

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

Related

Llewellyn v. Iowa State Commerce Commission
200 N.W.2d 881 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1972)
State Ex Rel. Turner v. Iowa State Highway Commission
186 N.W.2d 141 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1971)
Wood v. City of Birmingham
165 So. 2d 95 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1964)
City and County of Denver v. Currigan
362 P.2d 1060 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1961)
Huber v. Miller
101 N.W.2d 136 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1960)
State Ex Rel. Traeger v. Carleton
64 N.W.2d 776 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1954)
Court of County Revenues v. Richardson
41 So. 2d 749 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1949)
Oven v. Ausley
143 So. 588 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1932)
Scharnberg v. Iowa State Highway Commission
243 N.W. 334 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1932)
Wallace v. Foster
241 N.W. 9 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1932)
Cedar Rapids Amusement Assn. v. Wymer
240 N.W. 644 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
237 N.W. 625, 213 Iowa 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harding-v-board-of-supervisors-iowa-1931.