State ex rel. City of Beatrice v. Benton
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- State ex rel. City of Beatrice v. Benton (Neb. 1889)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Chapter 14 of the Session Laws of 1887 is entitled “An act to amend sections 27 and 58, and to add subdivisions LVTII. and LIX. to section 52 of article 2 of chapter 14 of the Compiled Statutes, relating to ‘cities of the second class’ having over 5,000 inhabitants, and to repeal said original sections 27 and 58, and all acts and parts of acts in conflict with the same.”
The amended section 27 provides for the duties of the city engineer and that of a special engineer, and the respective duties of the mayor and engineer in making estimates and letting contracts for city improvements.
“The cost of paving, macadamizing, or repaving the ■streets and alleys within any paving districts, except the intersections of streets and space opposite alleys within ■such districts, shall be assessed upon the lots and lands abutting upon the streets and alleys in such district in proportion to the feet front so abutting upon such streets and alleys.
The paragraphs following provide as to the duties' of the city treasurer relating to the collection of taxes by the seizure and sale of certain property in satisfaction thereof.
We quote again from the act, p. 314 (1887): “The cost of paving, macadamizing, or repaving the intersections of streets and space opposite alleys in any paving district shall be paid by the city as hereinafter provided, but nothing herein contained shall • be construed to exempt any street or other railway company from paving or repaving its whole right of way, including all space between and one foot beyond their outer rails, at its own cost, whenever any street shall be ordered paved or repaved by the mayor and council of the city as provided by law.
“For the purpose of paying the cost of paving, macadamizing, or repaving the streets and alleys in any paving district, exclusive of the intersections of streets and space opposite alleys therein, the mayor and council shall have power and may by ordinance cause to be issued
Provided also, that the owner of such abutting lots shall have the privilege of paying the whole of such assessment within fifty days and releasing the same from the levy of such special taxes; and further, that said bonds shall not be sold for less than their par value, and empowering the mayor and council to make other and further assessments if the first, or any part thereof, shall fail, or for any reason become invalid.
The succeeding paragraph of the act, p. 315, provides that, “Whenever the mayor and council deem it expedient they shall have power for the purpose of paying the costs of paving, repaving, or macadamizing the intersections of streets and space opposite alleys in the city, to issue bonds of the city, to run not more than twenty years, and to bear interest payable semi-annually at the rate not exceeding six per cent per annum, with coupons attached to be called ‘Paving Bonds/ and which shall not be sold for less than par, and the proceeds of which shall be used for no other purpose than paying for the cost of paving, repaving, or macadamizing the intersections of streets and alleys in the city.
“Provided, That the aggregate amount of such bonds issued in any one year shall not exceed the sum of $50,-000; and Provided further, That no such bonds shall be issued until the question of issuing the same has been submitted to the electors of the city at a general or special election therein, and authorized by a vote of the majority of the electors voting at such election.”
The question here presented is, whether the limitation
The first provision of this act to which I call special attention, is that which provides that the cost of paving, etc., within any paving district, except the intersections of streets and spaces opposite alleys, shall be assessed upon lots and lands abutting upon streets and alleys in such district in proportion to the feet front so abutting upon streets and alleys, and the provision for the assessment of special taxes for the payment thereof upon such abutting property, payable one-tenth within 50 days after the assessment thereof, and one-tenth annually until the same shall be fully paid. And next it is provided that the costs of paving the intersections of streets and the spaces opposite alleys should be paid by the city. The law-makers hav ■ ing made the above distinction between these two classes of public improvements, now take up the question of pro
Then we come to the provision for the issuing of paving bonds for the purpose of providing that these bonds may run not to exceed twenty years, to bear interest payable semi-annually at a rate not exceeding six per cent, to be called paving bonds, which shall not be sold for less than par value. It may be well to note the several points of difference between these two classes of bonds. The district paving bonds may be issued to run not to exceed ten years, to bear interest, payable annually, not to exceed seven per cent. It may be said as to these bonds that
If we can ascertain the exact meaning intended by the use of the words “ such bonds,” in this proviso, it will aid materially in the solution of the proposition now before us. Did the legislature mean by the use of these words to include district paving bonds, as well as paving bonds, and to limit the amount of all bonds to be issued, in • any one year, to the sum of $50,000 ? I think not. For, if so, would not the legislature have provided what proportion of the aggregate amount should be district paving bonds, and what proportion paving bonds? I think the legislature necessarily would have so 'distinguished in the law, considering the fact that the proportion of the former to the latter, in a given district, or section of the city, must be nearly as three to one. And again, other provisions of the act quoted are to- the effect that the special assessments which are to pay for the paving generally, and provide a sinking fund for the payment of the paving bonds, begin to fall due at the expiration of 50 days from the date of the ordinance providing for the improvement and levying the same, and continue to fall due by annual tenths.
Could it have been the intention to impose this burden upon the abutting property, providing for its drawing a
Having, for these considerations, and others, which the limited time at my disposal will not permit enlarging upon, reached the conclusion that the words “such bonds,” as used in the proviso, which I will designate as the VIII., are limited in their meaning and application to the paving bonds proper, and do not apply to, nor limit the. amount of, the district paving bonds which may be issued in any one year, it therefore necessarily follows that the same words when used in the IX., or succeeding proviso, are subject to the same limitation in their application, and cannot be construed to take away or limit the power delegated to the mayor and council in the preceding provisions of the act to issue district paving bonds to cases where the question of issuing them shall have been submitted to the electors of the city, and been voted for by a majority of the voters at such election.
Writ allowed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.