St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-08-14

This action was brought by the
plaintiffs, as taxpayers of the city of
Minneapolis, against the city and it's
officials, to restrain and enjoin them
commissioners of the city, or any one
else, the S2G0OG0 of city bonds, desig-
mated as reservoir bonds, which have
already been issued by the city, but
now remain i'll its possession.
This hearing arises on an order to
show cause why temporary injunc-
ton or restraining order should not
be mace, restraining the negotiation of
theb onds during. the tendency of this
action. The plaintiffs claim that the
defendants should be restrained on the
ground that the issue of the bonds
vas unwarranted. That the city has
already reached the limit of its in
sue, as provided by section of chap
ter 2O4 of the session laws of 1893,
which provides that no city in this
state shall at any time be authorized
TO ISIS lss ,I;7 bonds or to incur any debt
pose, in excess of 5 per centum Of
the assessed valuation of the taxable
property of such city, according to the
last preceding assessment" and that
the bonds are invalid.
AS TO the facts in the case, there is
but little, if any, difference in the.
claims OF the respective parties IL
is CONCEDED that the bonded indebted
of the city in the sinking fund, amounts
to Sc, $50, coo; that at the time of the
commencement of this action, and AT
the time of the attempted negotiate
OF the oondS in question, there was in
cash, in addition to the sos, GOO of the,
city bonds, in the sinking fund, the
sum of S4S5,932 which makes the total
bonded Indebtedness of the city, less
ca aSh, In the sinking fund, s6,2Ti,O6S, pro-
cash in the sinking fund should be de-
Quoted from the aggregate of the other
bond Indebtedness. 1t is also conceded
that there are outstanding park board
certificates to the amount of $747, S4s.
1t is also conceded that the assessed
valuation of the taxable property or
the city. as equaliZed by the state
board OF equalization, and on which
the tax of 1894 was levied, amounts
that is Sc, 1885, 2S. which would constl-
tute the limit of the city Indebtedness.
as claimed by the plaintiffs The de-
PENDANTS claim that the per cent limi,
should be based on the assessment as
made and equalized by the city au>
thorities. which gave a greater Valua>
ton than that on which the tax is
levied. We are of the opinion that the
limit of Indebtedness should be based
upon the valuation as equalized by the
state board, and on which the tax was
extended.
AS to the park board certificates,
of the city's Indebtedness within the
meaning of the law defining indebted
ness for the purpose Of tax limitation.
These certificates were issued under
on page 2O5 of the city charter. The
act specifically provides against Gre.
ating any liability against the city.
1t simply provides that certain assess
ments and collections on property
benefited by the. construction of parks
should be made by the city authorities
and when collected paid to the certi-
ficate holders. The city is only liable
as a trustee, to perform the duties re-
quired of it by the law, and in no
sense liable as a city for the payment
of the same. The city cannot be sued
to recover the amount of the certif1-
Gates: neither can a general tax be
levied for the payment of the same
eys and bonds in the sinking fund
should be deducted from the amount of
the bonded Indebtedness, which would
leave the actual Indebtedness of the
city to which the limit act applies, at
Sc 274, 06S.
Prior to the general act of 1893, limit
ing the Indebtedness to 5 per cent Of
the assessed valuation of the taxable
vision of the city charter also limiting
the Indebtedness of the city to per
cent of the aggregate value of its tax
able property, and defining the manner
In Which the Indebtedness should be as
certained. 1t provided: "That in esti-
mating the whole amount of the princi-
pal of all bonds actually issued by
said city at the time. together with the
proposed ISSUE there shall be deducted
the total amount of funds and securi-
ties in the sinking fund provided for in
this charter. for the payment of the
bonds of said city: and the bonds issued
and proposed to be issued. less the
amount of such sinking fund, shall not
exceed 5 per centum of the aggregate
value of the taxable property of said
city as aforesaid This provision was
fixing - e debt limit.
Whatever views we might take of the
law We're it not for this charter pro-
vision. it IS unnecessary to state. The
| charter provision requires the moneys
and securities in the sinking fund to be
! deducted from the aggregate Indebted