Hyde v. Ewert

91 N.W. 474, 16 S.D. 133, 1902 S.D. LEXIS 89
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 4, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 91 N.W. 474 (Hyde v. Ewert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hyde v. Ewert, 91 N.W. 474, 16 S.D. 133, 1902 S.D. LEXIS 89 (S.D. 1902).

Opinion

Haney, P. J.

This is an action to enjoin the issuing of certain refunding bonds. The plaintiff appeals from a judgment of dismissal oh the merits. To avoid any misunderstanding regarding the facts upon which our conclusions are based, the findings of the learned circuit court, to which no objections are made, will be reproduced in extenso. Such findings are as follows:

“(1) That the plaintiff: is a citizen of the United States and of the state of South Dakota, and a resident, freeholder, taxpayer, and elector of the city of Pierre, county of Hughes, and state of South Dakota, and has been such for more than ten years last past.
“(2) That the defendant Adolph Ewert is the duly elected, qualified, and acting mayor of the city of Pierre aforesaid; that the defendants Robert Brand huber, Truels Madsen, Louis Kehr, Lester H. Clow, Albert Wheelon, Robert L. Kelly, C. B. Billinghurst, and E. D. Stoddard are the duly elected, qualified, and acting members of and constituting the city council of said city qf Pierre; and that the defendant Noah Newbanks [135]*135is the duly appointed, qualified, aud acting city auditor of the said city of Pierre..
“(3) That the said city of Pierre is now, and was at and during all the times mentioned in the complaint, a municipal corporation duly created, organized, and existing under and by virtue'of the general laws of the state of South Dakota relating to the incorporation of cities.
“(4) That on the 1st day of April, 1902, and also at the date of "making these findings of fact, the indebtedness of the city of Pierre aforesaid, as shown by its records, was and is as follows: Park bonds issued June 1, 1889, $15,000; funding bonds issued July 1, 1890, $25,000; .fundingbonds issued Octo.ber 1, 1890, $100,000; funding bonds issued October!, 1891, $150,000; past due interest upon said bonded indebtedness about $145,000. That the bonds of the board of education of the city of Pierre in the sum of $178,000, mentioned and alleged in paragraph 4 of the complaint, are not and do not constitute any part of the bonded or other indebtedness of said city of Pierre. That on the 1st day of April, 1902, and upon this date, the total bonded indebtedness of said city of Pierre, including past-due interest upon said bonds, was and is the approximate sum of $435,000. That none of said indebtedness has been paid, and the same, and the whole thereof, is still outstanding at this date, as shown by the records of said city of Pierre. That the total' assessment and assessed .valuation of all taxable property within the said city of Pierre, returned by the city assessor for the year 1901, was the sum of $864,340, as equalized. That said park bonds in $15,000 bear interest at the rate of 7 per cent., said funding bonds in $25,000 bear interest at the rate of 6 per cent.,, said funding bonds in $100,000 [136]*136bear interest at tbe rate of 6 percent., and said funding bonds in $150,000 bear interest at tbe rate of 6 per cent, per annum, payable in all cases semi-annually. That each and all of said bonds were and are legal and valid obligations of the said city of Pierre. That when said bonds were issued, respectively, the same, and each and all of them, were for sums and amounts of indebtedness of said city which were within the constitutional and statutory limitations of indebtedness for and applying .to said city of Pierre at the time of the incurring of the indebtedness and indebtednesses represented and evidenced by said bonds, respectively. That the total assessed valuation of all of the taxable property within the said city of Pierre for the years 1888, 1889, 1890, and 1891, respectively, was and were as follows, viz.: For the year 1888, $622,499; for the year 1889, $991,869; for the year 1890, $3,169,173; and for the year 1891, $6,022,084.
‘ ‘(5) That at a special meeting of the city council of said city of Pierre, duly and regularly called and held at the city council rooms in said city on the 25th day of May, 1902, there was introduced and given hs first reading in said city council Ordinance No. 183, entitled ‘An ordinance to provide for the issuance of refunding bonds of the city of Pierre, for the purpose of refunding the outstanding bonded indebtedness thereof, and for levies of taxes by said city to pay the principal and interest of said refunding bonds. ’ That on the 2d day of June, 1902, at a meeting of said city council, duly and regularly held at the usual place of meeting thereof in said city, said ordinance was reported back by the committee to which it had been referred, with the recommendation that said ordinance do pass. That thereupon said ordinance was given its second [137]*137reading, and duly put upon its final passage, and upon a roll call all the members of said city council present at said meeting, to-wit, the defendants Robert Brandhuber, Truels Madsen, Louis Kehr, Lester H. Clow, Albert Wheelon, C. B. Billinghurst, and E. D. Stoddard, voted in favor of the passage of said ordinance, and the same was thereupon by the mayor aforesaid, presiding at the council meeting, declared to be duly and regularly passed, and the same was thereupon and upon said date, to wit, June 2, 1902, approved by the defendant Adolph Ewert, mayor aforesaid, and the signature of said .mayor was attested by the signature of Noah Newbanks, city auditor, of said city of Pierre, and the seal of said city thereunto attached. That said city ordinance has been duly published in the official newspapers of said city of Pierre as required by law.
“(6) That it is the intention of the said city of Pierre, its said city counsel, and the defendant authorities thereof, by and through said city council and the proper officers of said city, to issue no more of said proposed refunding bonds of said city of Pierre than shall be necessary in order to refund said bonded indebtedness of said city of Pierre, and retire and cancel all of said funding bonds mentioned and described in the complaint and in said ordinance and the resolution therein contained, by and through the exchange of said refunding bonds for said outstanding funding bonds, such refunding bonds not to exceed in any event the sum of $225,000 in par value thereof. That said proposed exchange of refunding bonds for said outstanding funding bonds will not result to the damage or injury of plaintiff or any other taxpayer of said city of Pierre, but, on the contrary, will be greatly to the advantage and benefit of [138]*138plaintiff and all other tax payers and owners of property subject to taxation in said city of Pierre. That thereby, and by the agreed terms of exchange of said proposed refunding bonds for said outstanding funding bonds, the amount of principal of said outstanding bonded indebtedness will be greatly lessened and reduced, and the interest thereon in amount and rate will thereby be reduced from not less than 6 per cent, per annum to 2 per cent, per annum for the first three years,, and 3 per cent, per annum thereafter and until the maturity of the said proposed refunding bonds, - and the burden of taxation hereafter and during the lifetime of said proposed refunding bonds will, as a consequence, be greatly relieved to plaintiff and all other of said taxpayers.
“(7) That said ordinance No. 183 is in the words and figures following, to-wit:
“ ‘An ordinance to provide for the issuance of refunding bonds .

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

Related

Berven v. Board of Regents of Education
201 N.W.2d 218 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1972)
Erickson v. School District No. 2
217 P.2d 887 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1950)
Baldwin v. Board of Education
33 N.W.2d 473 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1948)
In Re Opinion of the Judges
287 N.W. 581 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1939)
Talkington v. Turnbow
83 S.W.2d 71 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1935)
Sebern v. Cobb
238 P. 1023 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1925)
Gross v. City of Bowdle
182 N.W. 629 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1921)
Vallelly v. Board of Park Commissioners
111 N.W. 615 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1907)
Walling v. Lummis
92 N.W. 1063 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1902)
Ewert v. Mallery
91 N.W. 479 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 N.W. 474, 16 S.D. 133, 1902 S.D. LEXIS 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyde-v-ewert-sd-1902.