Spilman v. City of Parkersburg

14 S.E. 279, 35 W. Va. 605, 1891 W. Va. LEXIS 94
West Virginia Supreme Court·Decided December 19, 1891·Published·Cited by 45 cases

Opinion

Holt, Judge:

Article 10 section 8, Constitution of West Virginia provides that “no county, city, school district, or municipal corporation, shall hereafter be allowed to become indebted, in any manner or for any purpose, to an amount, including existing indebtedness, in the aggregate exceeding five \oer centum on'the value of the taxable property therein, to be ascertained by the last assessment for State and county taxes previous to the incurring of such indebtedness; nor without at the same time providing for the collection of a direct annual tax, ¡sufficient to pay annually the interest on such debt and the principal thereof within, and not exceeding, thirty four years: provided, that no such debt shall be contracted undeEthis section unless .^all^questions connected with the same shall have-been first submit[607] ted to a vote of the people, and have received three fifths ot all the votes cast for and against the same.”

This suit involves this provision of the State constitution, and is a bill in equity, filed in the Circuit Court of Wood county on the 9th day of April, 1891, by B. D. Spillman, who sues on behalf of himself and all other citizens, residents, and taxpayers in and of the city of Parkersburg, West Va., against the city of Parkersburg and others, to restrain and inhibit the creation by the city of a debt for the erection of an electric light plant, alleged to be in violation of the above mentioned section of the State constitution. The injunction was granted on May 25,1891, until further order, and thereupon defendants gave notice of motion to be made on June 22,1881, to dissolve, on which day the judge in vacation heard the motion, but overruled the same, refusing to dissolve the injunction, and from this order defendants below, plaintiffs in error, have obtained this appeal.

The facts are as follows: The total valuation of the taxable property on the 10th day of November, 1890, ascertained by the last assessment in the city for State and county taxes, was three million eight hundred and eighteen thousand, oue hundred and twenty dollars — five per cent, of which is one hundred and ninety thousand, nine hundred and six dollar’s. The then existing indebtedness of the city was one hundred and ninety thousand dollars. On the 18th day of March, 1891, the Thomson-Houston Electric Company entered into a written contract of that date, whereby the Electric Company agreed to erect and install for the city a certain electric plant, in accordance with specifications attached and made part of the contract, for which the city agreed to provide a suitable site, boiler, and foundation for engine and dynamos, to pay all taxes on such apparatus and plant, and keep the same in repair, and also agreed to lease from the electric company such plant, furnished for street lighting for a term of five years from the completion of the plant, and to pay at the end of each three months after its completion — that is to say, quarterly —the sum of one thousand six hundred and twenty five dollars, for the use thereof, except that each succeeding pay[608] ment was to be eighteen dollar's and seventy five cents less than the preceding payment; and at the expiration of the term of five years the city has the right to buy the same at the price of $1 — plainly a contract of purchase in legal effect; in fact so designated twice in a paper made part of the contract.

No question connected with this transaction was submitted to the people; no vote was had thereon. In addition there were in November,1890, funds receivable from licenses, etc. the sum of seventeen thousand, four hundred and forty four dollars and fifty three cents.'

AGREEMENT.

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

Spilman v. City of Parkersburg, 14 S.E. 279, 35 W. Va. 605, 1891 W. Va. LEXIS 94 (W. Va. 1891).

14 S.E. 279 (Spilman v. City of Parkersburg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

STATE EX REL. COUNCIL OF CHARLESTON v. Hall
441 S.E.2d 386 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1994)
Rogers v. Hechler
348 S.E.2d 299 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1986)
Delardas v. County Court of Monongalia County
186 S.E.2d 847 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1972)
State Ex Rel. Hall v. Taylor
178 S.E.2d 48 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1970)
Edwards v. Hylbert
118 S.E.2d 347 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1960)
State Office Bldg. Commission v. Trujillo
120 P.2d 434 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1941)
Sager v. City of Stanberry
78 S.W.2d 431 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1934)
In Re Gypsy Oil Co.
1929 OK 536 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1929)
Aaronson v. Smiley
1929 OK 522 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1929)
C. D. Coggeshall & Co. v. Smiley
1929 OK 526 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1929)
Swiger v. Board of Education
147 S.E. 708 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1929)
Kanawha Manufacturing Co. v. City of Charleston
141 S.E. 520 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1928)
Gentis v. Hunt
1925 OK 529 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
Cochran v. Mayor of Middletown
125 A. 459 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1924)
Shonk Land Co. v. Joachim
123 S.E. 444 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1924)
Fairbanks-Morse Co. v. City of Geary
1916 OK 398 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Anderson v. International School District No. 5
156 N.W. 54 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1915)
Spedden v. Board of Education
81 S.E. 724 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1914)
O'Neil Engineering Co. v. Incorporated Town of Ryan
1912 OK 398 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
City of Beaumont v. Masterson
142 S.W. 984 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1911)