ALEXANDER v. BOARD of EDUCATION TOWN of CARMEN et al

ALEXANDER v. BOARD of EDUCATION TOWN of CARMEN et al
1932 OK 822
18 P.2d 863
161 Okla. 287
Case Number: 21552
Decided: 12/13/1932
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

ALEXANDER
v.
BOARD of EDUCATION, TOWN of CARMEN, et al.

Syllabus

¶0 1. Municipal Corporations--Funding Bonds as Prima Facie Evidence of Validity of Indebtedness.
Funding bonds issued in substantial compliance with the provisions of the statutes of Oklahoma are prima facie evidence of the validity of the indebtedness evidenced thereby.
2. Same--Validity of Indebtedness as Dependent Upon Date of Incurring Same and not Upon Date of Funding.
The validity of indebtedness evidenced by funding bonds is not to be determined from the last assessment for state and county purposes previous to the issuance of the bonds, but from the last assessment for state and county purposes previous to the incurring of the indebtedness.
3. Same.
The validity of indebtedness evidenced by funding bonds is determinable as of the date of the incurring of the indebtedness, and not as of the date of the funding thereof.

Appeal from District Court, Alfalfa County; O. C. Wybrant, Judge.

Action by Laura F. Alexander against the Board of Education of Town of Carmen, Alfalfa County, et al. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Hayes, Richardson, Shartel, Gilliland & Jordan, for plaintiff in error.
W. Adelbert Dillon, for defendants in error.

ANDREWS, J.

¶1 This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the district court of Alfalfa county in favor of the defendants.

¶2 The purpose of the action, as disclosed by the petition, was reflected in the prayer thereof, which was as follows:

"Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment against said defendant for the sum of $ 31.20, together with interest thereon from March 1, 1929, until paid; and plaintiff further prays, being wholly remediless, that your honorable court issue a writ of mandamus, requiring and compelling said defendants to comply with their duties in the premises, and to make an itemized statement of the estimated needs of the amount required by law for sinking fund purposes to pay the interest on said bond, and to retire the principal at maturity, and make appropriation for such sinking fund purposes, so that said bond may be retired at its maturity and interest coupons may be paid, and plaintiff further prays for such other and further relief as may be just and proper and for the cost of this action."

¶3 The judgment of the trial court was based upon the conclusion of law that the bonds "were issued in excess of five per cent. of the municipal indebtedness as shown in the stipulation in this case."

¶4 There are many questions presented by the record in this case. We deem it necessary to determine only one of them, and that is whether or not the indebtedness evidenced by the funding bonds in question, with the other indebtedness of the municipality, is shown by the record to be in excess of the five per centum limitation imposed by the provisions of section 26, art. 10, of the Constitution. We find no evidence thereof. While the record shows that the total of the amount of the bonds in question, added to the amount of the other indebtedness of the municipality at the time of the issuance of the bonds, was in excess of five per centum of the valuation of the taxable property in the municipality ascertained from the last assessment for state and county purposes previous to the issuance of the bonds, we find nothing in the record showing that the amount of the indebtedness evidenced by the bonds in question, added to the amount of the other indebtedness of the municipality at the time of the incurring of the indebtedness evidenced by the bonds, was in excess of five per centum of the valuation of the taxable property in the municipality ascertained from the last assessment for state and county purposes previous to the incurring of the indebtedness evidenced by the bonds, and we find nothing in the record showing that the indebtedness evidenced by the bonds was in excess of the income and revenue provided for the municipality for the year in which that indebtedness was incurred. The indebtedness was not incurred by the issuance of the funding bonds. The indebtedness funded existed prior to the issuance of the funding bonds. The issuance of the funding bonds changed the form of the evidence of the indebtedness. Faught v. City of Sapulpa, 145 Okla. 164, 292 P. 15. Nor does the invalidity of the judgment affect the invalidity of the funding bonds, for, if there was a valid indebtedness, it could have been funded, though no judgment had been rendered thereon. Faught v. City of Sapulpa, supra. If the indebtedness evidenced by the judgment and later evidenced by the funding bonds was invalid, the burden was upon the defendants to show its invalidity, for the plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of the validity of the indebtedness by showing the funding bonds to have been issued in substantial conformity with the provisions of the statutes of Oklahoma. The defendants made no such showing.