State ex rel. City of Chillicothe v. Gordon
Supreme Court of Missouri
Mandamus. (1) It is claimed by the respondent that the Act of 1897, p. 49 (R. S. 1899, sec. 6275) is in part unconstitutional as being in contravention of section 28 of article 4 of the Constitution of Missouri. It is contended that the words “maintain and operate,” found in .the body of that act, should have been in the title of the act in order to authorize the city to issue bonds to construct, maintain and operate an electric light-plant.
Read the full summary
Mandamus. (1) It is claimed by the respondent that the Act of 1897, p. 49 (R. S. 1899, sec. 6275) is in part unconstitutional as being in contravention of section 28 of article 4 of the Constitution of Missouri. It is contended that the words “maintain and operate,” found in .the body of that act, should have been in the title of the act in order to authorize the city to issue bonds to construct, maintain and operate an electric light-plant. We claim that said act is valid, and constitutional and authorized the issue of bonds in this case. State ex rel. v. Allen, 178 Mo. 577; Haeussler v. St.…
1Opinion of the CourtBrcwn, J.
This is an original proceeding by mandamus to compel the respondent, as State Auditor, to register and certify a $50,000 bond issue'of the city of Chillicothe, Missouri.
Prom the evidence taken before Hon. Homer Hall, special commissioner, and the admissions of the parties, we find that Chillicothe is a city organized under a special charter; has a population of 8000; an assessed valuation for the year 1908 of $1,520,000; and an outstanding bonded indebtedness of $15,000. On December 23, 1909, said city submitted to its qualified voters a proposition to increase its indebtedness by the issue…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State ex rel. Dickason v. County CourtSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- State v. RawlingsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- State v. Great Western Coffee & Tea Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Haeussler v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- State v. FulksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Phoenix City Council v. Canyon Ford, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1970
- State ex rel. Reorganized School District No. 4 v. HolmesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1950
- State v. Business Men's ClubMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- State Ex Rel. Morgan v. State Board of ExaminersMontana Supreme Court · 1957
- State ex rel. Greene County v. GideonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1919
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.