Hubbard v. Board of Com'rs of Bannock County

190 P.2d 685, 68 Idaho 141, 1948 Ida. LEXIS 116
Idaho Supreme Court·Decided February 24, 1948·No. No. 7397.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

*143 GIVENS, Chief Justice.

Bannock County by a duly called and regularly held election, authorized a million-dollar bond issue to provide a hospital, hospital grounds and other necessary buildings and equipment, consisting of a main hospital at Pocatello for $900,000 and two receiving hospitals, one at Downey and one at Grace, for $50,000 each.

Appellants insist Section 30-3301, I.C.A., 1 as amended by Chapter 66, S.L.1941, p. 127, limits the amount of such bonds that may be issued under Section 30-3302, I.C.A., 2 as providing the only interest and sink *144 ing fund retirement therefor and that the levy thereby authorized on the assessed valuation of Bannock County of $28,000,-000 would only raise $42,000 — insufficient to pay the interest and retire the principal in twenty years.

Upon demurrer and stipulation, the trial court correctly held Section 30-3301, I.C.A. was not a limitation on Section 30-3302, I.C.A., because, first; Section 30-3301, I.C.A., does not by express terms limit bonds issued under Section 30-3302, I.C. A. Second; the last paragraph in Section 30-3302, I.C.A., the only connecting link between the two Sections — though providing that funds derived from the levy under Section 30-3301, I.C.A., are to- go into the bond sinking fund — does not provide that such contribution is the exclusive method for the payment of such bonds, which is significant and under similar circumstances held to be controlling. Lloyd Corporation v. Bannock County, 53 Idaho 478, at page 485, 25 P.2d 217. Third; Section 30-3301, I.C.A., does not by implication limit the amount of bonds authorized by Section 30-3302, I.C.A., State v. Robb, 143 Kan. 527, 55 P.2d 815. Fourth; such last paragraph in Section 30-3302, I.C.A. was eliminated therefrom by the amendment thereof, Chapter 116, S.L.1945, p. 179, in force when the bonds were voted. Fifth; appellants’ construction of Section 30-3301, I.C. A., would make it out of harmony, if not in conflict, with Section 55-211, I.C.A., 3 *145 made applicable to such bond issue by the 1945 amendment of Section 30-3302, I.C.A.

Appellants argue if Section 30-3301, I.C. A., is not held to be a limitation, it is meaningless and there is no limit to the amount of such a bond issue. In the first place, Section 30-3301, I.C.A., does not have to be construed as a limitation to have meaning, because.it provides for an annual levy for the furnishing, upkeep, etc. of a hospital and likewise, if sufficient, could be used to provide for a hospital. Second; no provision of the Constitution or statute has been called to our attention which places a limitation upon the amount of bonds that may be voted by a county for hospital purposes. '

Only one “purpose,” though including three units or structures, was in the call for the election, thus complying with Article VIII, Section 3 of the Idaho Constitution. Independent Highway Dist. No. 2 of Ada County v. Ada County, 24 Idaho 416, 134 P. 542; Baker v. Gooding County, 25 Idaho 506, 138 P. 342; Howard v. Independent School Dist. No. 1, 17 Idaho 537, 106 P. 692; Forward et al. v. San Diego County et al., 190 Cal. 202, 211 P. 458; Dancy v. Davidson, Tex.Civ.App., 183 S.W.2d 195.

Section 30-3301, I.C.A., is, therefore, not a bar to the issuance and negotiation of the bonds heretofore voted by the citizens of Bannock County, and the judgment is affirmed. Costs awarded to respondents.

BUDGE, HOLDEN, MILLER, and HYATT, JJ., concur.

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

Hubbard v. Board of Com'rs of Bannock County, 190 P.2d 685, 68 Idaho 141, 1948 Ida. LEXIS 116 (Idaho 1948).

190 P.2d 685 (Hubbard v. Board of Com'rs of Bannock County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Trumbo v. Crestline Lake Arrowhead Water Agency
250 Cal. App. 2d 320 (California Court of Appeal, 1967)