Houston v. Boltz

185 S.W. 76, 169 Ky. 640, 1916 Ky. LEXIS 754
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedApril 25, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 185 S.W. 76 (Houston v. Boltz) 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
Houston v. Boltz, 185 S.W. 76, 169 Ky. 640, 1916 Ky. LEXIS 754 (Ky. Ct. App. 1916).

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Chief Justice Miller

Reversing.

By this action Frank Houston, a resident and tax payer of Campbell County, asks a mandamus against the fiscal court of that county to require it to issue bonds which it is claimed were authorized by an election held on November 3rd, 1914.

Pursuant to orders of the Campbell county court entered upon the petition of the requisite number of voters, the three following propositions were submitted to the voters of Campbell County at the regular election held on November 3rd, 1914: (1) “Are you in favor of issuing $100,000.00 in bonds for the purpose of building roads and bridges!”; (2) “Are you in favor of free turnpikes and gravel roads?”; and, (3) “Are yon in favor of issuing $150,000.00 in bonds for the purpose of acquiring.all the privately owned turnpikes and gravel roads?”

Each of these propositions received the assent of a majority of the voters who voted thereon; none of them, however, received the assent of two-thirds of the voters who voted thereon. All preliminary steps necessary to a [642]*642regular and legal submission of the questions were taken; the election was regularly held; and, the vote was properly canvassed and returned by the county election commissioners. By its answer the fiscal court admitted the truth of the allegations of the petition, which set up the foregoing facts, but stated that it had declined to issue the bonds in each instance because neither proposition had been ratified by two-thirds of the voters voting thereon.

It will thus be seen that there are no disputed questions of fact; the record presents only questions of law.

The circuit judge dismissed the petition for more than one reason. He was of opinion that the proposition to issue the bonds should have been submitted at a special election held on a day other than the day on which the general election was held; that each proposition required a two-thirds favorable vote instead of a majority only; that the Act of 1896 (sec. 4748b, Ky. Sts. 1909), providing for a bond issue to purchase privately owned turnpikes had been repealed by the Act of 1914 (sec. 4356s, Ky. Sts. 1915); and that mandamus was not the proper remedy.

1. Section 148 of the Constitution provides for not more than one election, in each year, to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, except as otherwise provided in the Constitution.

Section 157a of the Constitution authorizes the issuance of bonds for the construction of public roads and bridges, provided the indebtedness is approved by the voters of the county at a special election held for that purpose “in such manner as may be provided by law. ’ ’

Section 4307 of the Kentucky Statutes, enacted for the purpose of carrying section 157a of the Constitution into effect, reads as follows:

‘ ‘ The fiscal court shall have the power and authority to issue and sell bonds from time to time within the constitutional limitations for the purpose of building, constructing and reconstructing public roads and bridges, said bonds to bear interest not to exceed five per cent per annum, with coupons attached, payable semi-annually, these bonds to be in denominations of not less than one hundred dollars or more than one thousand dollars, to run not less than five nor more than thirty years, and to be redeemed within that time at [643]*643the pleasure of the court, and to be sold at not less than par value and accrued interest. Before the bonds authorized under this act shall be issued, the county court of the county, upon the petition of one hundred and fifty legal voters who are freeholders of the county, shall at the regular term thereof, after receiving said petition, make an order on his order book directing an election to be held in said county on some day named in said petition not earlier than sixty days after said application is lodged with the judge of said court, which order shall direct the sheriff of the county to advertise said election and the objects therefor at least thirty days next before the day thereof in some newspaper having the largest circulation in the county and also by printed hand bills posted up at not less than four public places in each voting precinct in the county and at the court house door. All legal voters of said county shall be privileged to vote at said election. The question, ‘Are you in favor of issuing.......................................... in bonds for the purpose of building roads and bridges?’ shall be printed on the ballot as provided for in the general election law, section 1459 Kentucky Statutes: Provided, however, that all the money raised by the sale of bonds shall be used solely and alone for the building, construction, or reconstruction of roads of asphaltum, concrete, brick, stone block, macadam, gravel or other processes of equal merit.”

It will be noticed that section 4307, supra, nowhere requires the special election to be held upon a day different from the general election day, although it does provide that the election shall be held not earlier than sixty days after the application therefor is lodged with .the judge of the county court, and that it shall be advertised at least thirty days in a newspaper and by printed handbills. These are special provisions applicable to road-bond elections, which are not held annually or at stated times fixed by law, but only when specially ordered or called.

In 15 Cyc. 279, a special election is defined as follows:

“A special election is an election held to.supply a vacancy in office occurring before the expiration of the full term for which the incumbent was elected, or an election at which some question or proposition is submitted to the vote of the qualified electors.”

[644]*644It would seem, from this, that holding the election on a day different from the regular election day is not one of the essentials of a special election. When, therefore, section 157a of the Constitution provided that the vote upon a road-bond issue should be taken at a special •election, held in such manner as may be provided by law, and the law upon the subject does not require -the election to be held upon a day different from the general election day, it follows that the special election may be held upon the general election day. It is, nevertheless, a special election, because it has been specially called for the purpose of voting upon a proposition specially submitted. And, we see no reason why the proposition submitted should not be printed upon the ballot used in the general election held upon the same day.

The late case of Cleary v. Pieper, 169 Ky. 434, is in accord with this view. See also Walsh v. Asher, Judge, 163 Ky. 379.

It will be seen, therefore, that a special election under section 157a of the Constitution for the purpose of issuing bonds for the construction of roads and bridges, may be held upon tire same day as the general election is held.

2. Still confining ourselves to the consideration of the proposition to issue bonds for the construction of roads and bridges under section 157a of the Constitution, it becomes unnecessary, in view of the late decisions of this court in Gatton v. Fiscal Court of Daviess County, 169 Ky. 425; Armstrong v. Fiscal Court of Carter County, 169 Ky. 433, and Cleary v. Pieper, 169 Ky.

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

Related

Board of Supervisors of Elections v. Attorney General
229 A.2d 388 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1967)
Allen v. Burkhart
377 P.2d 821 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1963)
Defoe v. Perry County
169 S.W.2d 309 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1943)
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Tacoma School District No. 10
129 P.2d 531 (Washington Supreme Court, 1942)
Norton v. Letton
111 S.W.2d 1053 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1937)
State Highway Commission v. County Board of Education
94 S.W.2d 302 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1936)
Combs v. State Board of Education
60 S.W.2d 957 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1933)
Allen Ex Rel. City of Middlesboro v. Hollingsworth
56 S.W.2d 530 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1933)
Commonwealth v. Kentucky Jockey Club
38 S.W.2d 987 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1931)
Vick v. Commonwealth
33 S.W.2d 297 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1930)
Mills v. Dawson
247 S.W. 764 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1923)
Bingham v. Johnson
237 S.W. 1077 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1922)
Lynn v. Bullock
225 S.W. 733 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1920)
District Board of Tuberculosis Sanatorium Trustees v. Bradley
222 S.W. 518 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1920)
South v. Fish
205 S.W. 329 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1918)
Elam v. Salisbury
202 S.W. 56 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1918)
Commonwealth v. Bullock
200 S.W. 45 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1918)
Commonwealth ex rel. Bentley v. Hughes
192 S.W. 517 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1917)
City of Murray v. Irvan
185 S.W. 859 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
185 S.W. 76, 169 Ky. 640, 1916 Ky. LEXIS 754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houston-v-boltz-kyctapp-1916.