The weekly tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1891-1894, 1894-11-23

electors and upon which the electors
shall vote is plainly stated in the statute
1t is whether authority shall be given the
trustees to issue coupon bonds in a Ger.
tain amount within the limit defined by
the statute) and bearing a certain rate OF
interest, within the limit fixed by the
statute) and payable and redeemable at
certain times, and for certain proposes.
So 1t seems that in an election upon this
question Of issuing bonds of q school
district, the matter submitted to the
electors contains several propositions, as
follows: First, the amount OF bonds;
second, the rate of interest which they
shall bear; third, the time when payable;
fourth, the time when redeemable, and
fifth, the purpose for which the money
lie to be used. Consulting the notice pub
lished by tha school trustees, set forth in
the statement above, We find that they
submitted to the electors only two Of the
above propositions, namely: The first
and fifth, that iA, the amount of the
bonds and the purposes Of the use of
the money. They wholly omitted to
submit the second, third and fourth
propositions, namely: the rate Of inter-
est Of the bonds, the time when payable
and the time when redeemable. Were
these propositions 80 omitted material,
or we're they simply formalities? The
question now arises, before the bonds
are delivered to any purchaser and nc
question of innocent purchaser is in
volved. Us Am. and Eng. Ency. Law,
p. 1879, cases cited in note A. We are
Of opinion that the trustees did not sub
nit to the electors questions which the
law required to be submitted, and that
those questions 30 omitted should, on
consideration of an application to enjoin
the issuance of the bonds, be considered
vital and material, and not simply need
less formalities.
An election for the issuance of school
bonds is a special election, held pursuant
to cotice. The electors have no notice
by any general law as they have of a
general election. The notice of election
was therefore indispensable. (Meach-
ANS Public Officers, Sections l72-l76;
Cooley on Taxation, Chapter KY But
the alleged notice in the matter before
US did not notify. The electors should
have been permitted to decide what rate
of interest they were willing that the
district should pay. This item was i'm
portant and the statute considered it 80.
Whether the district should pay one rate
of interest or another was a question
whether the district should or should
not pay out a certain sum Of money as
interest. The difference between one
rate OF interest and another is a sum of
money to be paid, just as much as is the
face Of the bond itself. And the statute
provides that the electors shall decide
upon the payment OF this amount, just
as positively as that they shall decide
upon the amount Of the principal sum
that they shall borrow.
The time and payment Of redemption
is ALEC a matter of Importance to the
electors. 1t is of interest to the borrower
land the electors are in fact the borrow
ers) to decide whether be wishes to make
a short loan or a long loan, and whether
he shall have the privilege to redeem In
a short time, or whether he must allow
the principal to stand and he be com
PEELED to go OIL and pay interest after a
date when he thinks that he can lift
from himself the burden of his debt.
These three important matters the
electors never had ar opportunity to vote
upon. No n ever passed upon these
questions except the trustees when they
came to prepare their bonds. We have
no doubt that this was for the electors
to determine, and not the trustees.
AS above noticed, this question arises
under proceedings to e%pjoin the issuance
and delivery of the bonds, and is not
between any innocent purchasers Of the
bonds and the school district.
1t is therefore ordered that the judg-
ment be reversed and the case be re-
manded to the district court, with di-
rections to override the demurrer and
to proceed thereafter in accordance with
the views expressed in this opinion.
(Signed) WILLIAM III. De WITT,
Associate Justice.