Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ackerman v. Boyd

Supreme Court of Arizona

May 5, 1952

ACKERMAN
v.
BOYD et al

Judgment reversed with directions.

Willis R. Dees, of Tucson, for appellant and cross-appellee.

Robert Morrison, County Atty., and Morris K. Udall, Chief Deputy County Atty., of Tucson, for appellees and cross-appellants.

La Prade, Justice. Udall, C. J., and Stanford, Phelps and De Concini, JJ., concur.

OPINION

La Prade, Justice.

Page 352

[74 Ariz. 78] This is an appeal and a cross-appeal from a judgment on the pleadings in a declaratory judgment action brought by a taxpayer to test the legality of a proposed bond issue by the Pima County Board of Supervisors.

On November 5, 1951, the Board of Supervisors passed a Resolution of Intention reciting that the bonded indebtedness of the county did not exceed 4% of its assessed valuation and that the issuance of $ 3,000,000 in bonds would not exceed that limit; that the county needed a new courthouse and county hospital, and thereby announced its intention to issue $ 2,500,000 in bonds to obtain land and construct a new courthouse, and $ 500,000 to construct a county hospital. It was the announced intention of the supervisors to issue the bonds under authority of Section 17-337 et seq., A.C.A. 1939, without calling a bond election. On January 29, 1952, plaintiff (appellant here), as a taxpayer and owner of certain real property which the county proposed to condemn as a site for the buildings, filed an action asking judgment declaring that the board of supervisors has no right to issue bonds for that purpose without the assent of a majority of real property taxpayers given at an election held for that purpose, and praying that an injunction issue restraining it from proceeding further with the bond issue. Defendants answered, admitting all allegations of fact but alleging that they were and are entitled to issue the bonds without an election. Defendants also counterclaimed, asking a declaratory judgment upholding the legality of the proposed bond issue. Plaintiff's reply admitted all allegations of fact in the counterclaim but denied defendants' right to relief by virtue of their failure to comply with Section 10-601 et seq., A.C.A. 1939. Both parties then moved [74 Ariz. 79] for judgment on the pleadings, whereupon the trial court rendered judgment:

1. Upholding the right of the Board of Supervisors to issue bonds and construct

Page 353

the courthouse under Section 17-337 et seq., without holding a bond election.

2. Denying the Board of Supervisors the right to issue bonds for the construction of a county hospital under the purported authority of Section 17-337, upon the theory that a county hospital is not a "court-house, jail or other county building" as contemplated by said Section 17-337.

From this judgment the plaintiff-appellant appeals contending that neither court-house nor hospital can be built, when bonds are proposed to be issued for that purpose, without a bond election, and defendant-appellees appeal contending that both ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.