State Ex Rel. Walsh v. Buckingham

80 P.2d 910, 58 Nev. 342, 1938 Nev. LEXIS 16
CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1938
Docket3233
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 80 P.2d 910 (State Ex Rel. Walsh v. Buckingham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Ex Rel. Walsh v. Buckingham, 80 P.2d 910, 58 Nev. 342, 1938 Nev. LEXIS 16 (Neb. 1938).

Opinion

OPINION

By the Court,

Ducker, J.:

This is an original proceeding in mandamus. By her amended petition relator seeks to compel the payment of certain bonds and the assignment of certain funds for the purpose of such payment. The amended petition shows substantially as follows: Prior to February 5, 1936, the town of Mina, Mineral County, Nevada, was organized as a town under general laws. The legislature at the 1935 session enacted a statute, chapter 139, Statutes of 1935, which authorized the county commissioners of Mineral County, acting as a town board for the town of Mina, to issue bonds for the purpose of providing a waterworks for such town. Under the authority of this statute the board of county commissioners, acting as a town board for the said town of Mina, duly issued and sold to relator $20,000 in interest-bearing bonds, the same being numbered 1 to 40, inclusive, in the principal sum of $500 each, bearing *345 interest at the rate of six percent (6%), payable semiannually on the first Monday of January and July of each succeeding year starting on the first Monday in July 1936. The bonds were coupon bonds and the interest coupons were in the sum of $15 each. Bonds numbered 1, 2, and 3 were to become due and payable on the first Monday in January 1938, and three bonds maturing-on the first Monday in January in each year thereafter until the full amount of the indebtedness had been paid.

After the first Monday in January 1938, and the first meeting of said board in that year, relator presented to respondent, county treasurer, bonds 1, 2, and 3, then due and payable, together with 40 coupons in the amount of .$15 each, and demanded payment. There was then due relator $1,500 on the three bonds presented, and $600 interest. The county treasurer refused to pay the principal of the three bonds or the interest due on all thereof, or any part of said principal or interest, and still refuses to pay the same.

Prior to the first meeting of the county commissioners in January 1938, there existed a surplus of moneys in a fund of Mineral County known as “The Mina Contingent Water System Fund” of $892.63, which moneys were acquired from the sale of services from the town of Mina water system, under the provisions of said chapter 139.

At the time of the presentation of said matured bonds and said coupons for interest, then due, and demand for payment thereof upon said county treasurer, there was in his hands and possession as such county treasurer, in a special fund known as the “Mina Water Bond and Interest Redemption Fund,” moneys in the sum of $293.30, and there now is therein the sum of $486.91 acquired from the levy of taxes. At all times since said first meeting of the board of county commissioners in the month of January 1938, the surplus moneys in the “Mina Contingent Water System Fund” have exceeded said amount of $892.63, and now amount to sufficient, *346 together with the moneys in the “Mina Water Bond and Interest Redemption Fund,” to pay the bonds and interest coupons heretofore presented by relator for payment. At the time of said presentation and demand for payment there was in the two funds a sum in excess of $1,100.

It is alleged in the amended petition that it is the duty of the board of county commissioners of Mineral County to assign the surplus moneys in the “Mina Contingent Water System Fund” to the “Mina Water Bond and Interest Redemption Fund,” and has been its duty ever since the first meeting in January 1938, which it has failed to do. It is also alleged in the amended petition that it was thé duty of the county treasurer at the time of the-presentation and demand for payment by relator and ever since has been his duty to pay the principal of said three bonds and interest, or as much thereof as might be paid from the moneys in said redemption fund. Upon the presentation and hearing of the amended petition an amended alternative writ of mandate issued directing respondent commissioners to make the assignment prayed for, and respondent county treasurer to make the payment demanded, or as much thereof as might be paid from the moneys in his hands by reason of such assignment, or in said redemption fund, or show cause for not doing so. Respondent commissioners made no return to said amended alternative writ.

A return was made by respondent county treasurer in which he admitted most of the allegations of the amended petition. As to such as pertained to the duty of the commissioners to assign moneys from the former fund to the latter, he disclaimed knowledge and information sufficient to base a belief. He alleged that at the time of said presentation and demand there was not and is not at the present time moneys in the redemption fund sufficient to make payment of the three bonds and interest, and that this fund is the only fund out of *347 which he is authorized by law to make payment and redeem the bonds and interest, and on that account he was unable to perform his duty in that respect. He alleged that his failure to pay any part or portion thereof out of the small balance in the redemption fund was due to the fact that he was advised and believed that he could not pay any amount thereon less than the whole amount when due and that no demand or request was made on him by relator for the payment of any amount less than the whole thereof. There is no contention on the part of respondent that relator’s bonds are not valid bonds or that relator is not now entitled to payment of the first three bonds and interest on all thereof.

If it is now and was the duty of the respondent commissioners at the first meeting of the board to assign the surplus moneys in the “Mina Contingent Water System Fund” to the “Mina Water Bond and Interest Redemption Fund,” the peremptory writ must issue against respondents. Humboldt County v. County Commissioners of Churchill County, 6 Nev. 30. In the foregoing case it was held to be the only plain, speedy and adequate remedy to compel county commissioners to set apart certain funds in the treasury for a specific purpose when by statute they were absolutely required to do so and failed or neglected to do their duty in that regard.

The act under which the bonds were issued and sold, being chapter 139, Statutes of 1935, provides in part as follows:

“Sec. 5. To provide for the payment of said bonds and the interest thereon the board of county commissioners shall levy and collect annually a special tax on the assessed value of all property, both real and personal, subject to taxation, including proceeds of mines, within the boundaries of the town of Mina, Mineral County, until such bonds and interest thereon shall have been fully paid, sufficient to pay the interest on said *348 bonds and to pay and retire (beginning with the bond number one, and consecutively thereafter) six of said bonds annually, beginning with the first Monday in January of the second year after said bonds are issued, and on the first Monday in January of each year thereafter until all of said bonds have been redeemed or retired.

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

Related

State v. Steven Daniel P.
309 P.3d 1041 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2013)
City of Reno v. Reno Gazette-Journal
63 P.3d 1147 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2003)
Houston Gen. Ins. Co. v. EIGHTH JUD. DIST. COURT
578 P.2d 750 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 P.2d 910, 58 Nev. 342, 1938 Nev. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-walsh-v-buckingham-nev-1938.