Kemp v. Town of Hazlehurst
Kemp v. Town of Hazlehurst
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
'None of the objections to the validity of the bonds are well taken. They are perfectly valid. The proceedings of the mayor and board of aldermen show the utmost care, and are characterized by the most scrupulous observance of the law. The only thing we deem it worth while to say is that whenever the proposed bonds “exceed in amount seven per centum of the assessed value of the taxable property of the municipality” there must be an election. That was expressly decided in Town of Clarksdale v. Broaddus, 77 Miss., at page 672 (28 So., 955), last sentence of the opinion. But there was an election here, duly held. The “official ballots” provided for in § 3032 of code of 1892 are to be used in voting for municipal officers. They are not necessary in elections of this kind. There is nothing else worthy of remark by us. The reporter will set out all the objections, for the guidance of municipal authorities.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Simon Kemp v. Town of Hazlehurst
- Cited By
- 10 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Municipal Bonds. Code 1892, §§3006, 3007, 3008, 3014, 3015, 3016, 3017. The bonds of a municipality issued under code 1892, §§3014, 3015,-3016, 3017, are not invalid: Because, (a) The resolutions, other than an ordinance adjudging that the election had been properly held resulting in favor of the issuance, of the municipal authorities, providing for their issuance, do not conform to code 1892, § 3006, requiring the style of ordinances to be, “Be it ordained,” etc; nor because, (b) The resolutions, other than the one declaring an intention to issue the bonds, were not published as ordinances are required to be published by code 1892, § 3006, a notice of the election having been duly given by the election commissioners; nor because, (c) The resolutions, other than the ordinance adjudging that the election had been properly held, resulting in favor of the issuance, are not shown of record to have been read and considered (code 1892, § 3007) by sections; nor because, (d) The resolutions, other than the ordinance adjudging that the election had been held, and the one ordering the issuance of the bonds, are not shown of record to have had the vote on their final passage taken by yeas and nays; nor because, (e) The resolutions, other than the ordinance adjudging the election to have been properly held, do not conform to code 1892, § 3008, requiring ordinances to contain but one subject-matter, and that to be clearly expressed in its title; nor because, (/) An official ballot was not provided or voted at the election authorizing the issuance of the bonds; nor because, (g) The ballots voted at the election did not indicate the amount of bonds authorized, or show by whom the bonds were to be issued; nor because, (h) The election was held to submit to the voters the issuance of bonds for two purposes jointly, the erection of waterworks and an electric light plant; nor because, (i) There is no provision made in any of the proceedings (under code 1892, § 3015) that the bonds or any part thereof shall be payable after five years at the option of the municipality; nor because, (j) One hundred dollars, of a thirty-five thousand dollars issue, of the bonds are (under code 1892, § 3017) made to mature annually for nineteen years and all the balance to mature in twenty years.