The record-union., 1898-08-19

priated to pay the expense of building the
road, but the directors of the Folsom
Prison We're authorized and directed 70
furnish free of cost the necessary crushed
rock for macadamizing and cut stones Tor
cuIverts, drains, etc.
The Act contains no invitation TO sac
ramento County to contribute funds TO
pay expenses, but prohibits the doing OF
any work on the road until the title, to
the lands upon which it is laid shall have
In October, 1897, the ~defendants-the
Board of SuperVisors-ordered a special
election for voting upon a. proposition TO
issue the bonds of the county to the
amount of $4,000 for the purpose of inn
proving and matchmaking the public
road, TO wit, the highway in sacramento
County which is now situated and runs
closely tos the line of the Sacramento and
Placerville Railroad, which now extends
between said Sacramento City and the
At the election duly held in pursuance
of this order. the proposition was car
rIed by large majority, and thereupon
the board duly passed an ordinance pro-
viding for the issuance of the bonds, and
for the creation of an interest and sinking
fund to pay them The bonds were subse-
quently issued and sold at a premium
The ordinance makes no reference to
the Folsom Road Act, or to the COM
mission appointed hereunder 1t does
not appear that the two propositions have
any necessary or legal connection and it
is seriously doubtful, to say the least,
whether the Board of Supervisors could
at the disposal of the State Commission
ers, even if it had been SO expressly pro-
Vided in the ordinance and the authority
to issue the bonds was unquestioned For
these and for other reasons, which need
not be stated, the question of the validity
OF these bonds must be determined with
out any reference to the Folsom Road Act;
The inquiry is merely whether the Board
OF supervisors can issue bonds of the
county to raise funds, for the construction
OF county road.
of no C11nh nth
lty unless it is conferred by statute, and
the only claim of statutory authority is
based upon clause of Subdivision 13, of
Section %, of the County Government Act
Of 1897 Statutes of 1897, p. 460), as follows:
And any county may incur or refund a
bonded indebtedness for any purpose for
which the Board of Supervisors are here
IN authorized to expend the funds of the
county"
1t is claimed that the Board of Super
visors of Sacramento County are author
lied in the County Government Act, in
statutes to which it refers, to expend
funds of the county in constructing coun-
ty roads. This is not true in the sense
OF the clause above quoted.
In a county like Sacramento, in which
there IS an Incorporated city like the city
provements upon the streets are done by
virtue of laws relating to street work and
improvements within such municipality,
no tax can be levied for county road pur-
poses upon any property in such city.
Statutes of 1888, p. 20.) The road fund,
therefore, is a fund to which the whole
county does not contribute. 1t is a spe-
cial fund levied upon a portion of the
county, to be expended exclusively for
the benefit of that portion of the county
upon which it is levied. But the bonds of
a county-the bonds in question here-are
the bonds of the whole county, and must
be paid-if held validity means of tax
levied upon all the property Of the coun-
Sacramento. The County Government Act
does not countenance such a result. The
Boards of Supervisors cannot borrow
money on bonds of the whole county to
expend upon an object for which they
are only authorized to expend the funds
of part of the county.
In the case of the People VS.. Counts,
SO Cal, Is, there was no suggestion that
| the road tax in that county (Mariposa)
was not levied upon the entire county
The point upon which this decision turns
was not presented, and we do not know
that 1t could have been made. But, how
ever that may be, we are not satisfied
that, since the Board of Supervisors are
prohibited from taxing the city to pay for
county roads, they cannot do indirectly
by issuing bonds, what they are forbidden
to do directly. And, although it clearly
appears that a very large majority of the
citizens of Sacramento are in favor Of the
issuance of the bonds and of the con-
struction of the road, the plaintiff who is
a taxpayer of the city, cannot be denied
the relief which he asks.
The judgment is affirmed.
The Chief Justice (Beatty), deeming
himself disqualified, did not participate
in the decision