San Antonio light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1911-1993, 1924-04-18
dalgo Irrigation District VS.. Davidson

dalgo Irrigation District VS.. Davidson
102 4. 539.
1t follows that the city authorities
must date the bonds prior to the date
of their sale. This practice is contem-
plated and recognized by II statutes
of the STATE and the charter of San
Antonio 10 providing that no bonds
of the city shall be sold for less than
par and accrued interest. Muller VS..
| City of Galveston 81 s. W. 1921.
Now. will the courts say at what
time prior TO the sale t..ereof the
bonds shall be dated. 1t is apparent
that this cannot be done. for there is
no way for court TO determine when
the bonds should be sold.
The charter of San Antonio provides
that. ''the board of. commissioners shall
have the care. management and con-
troll of the city. and its finances"
and it is within their sound discretion
to determine when the bonds are to be
sold. looking to the condition of the
bond market. the amounts of the sew.
erai bids and the reliability of the
purchasers.
Now. if it is within the discretion
of the board of commissioners to date
the bonds so that they will mature at
a time, when in their judgment it will
be most convenient for the city to
meet the obligations: if it is within
their discretion TO determine when il
would be most advantageous TO the
city TO sell the bonds; then the courts
should not interfere. unless il is
shown that the board of commission
ers have unreasonably delayed the dis
position of the bonds Concho Camp
No. &c WOW VS.. City of San Angelo
231 $. W. 1112. This has not been
shown.
The ordinance of December 10. |
1923. regularly passed by the board of |
of San Antonio. author
ICES the issuance of the bonds. fixes
their terms. and makes provision for |
their liquidation. The ordinance in !
substance provides that the bonds shall |
be serial bonds extending over period |
Of 40 years: that 140 of the bonds |
shall mature at the expiration of one |
year from their date, and that 1-40 a
the bonds shall mature at the expira-
ton Of each and every year thereafter
until the entire issue is iquidated
that the bonds shall bear date as of
January l, 1924.
The validity of this ordinance is not
affected by the delay in the issuance
IF the bonds. Muller VS.. City of Gal
7eston. - s. w. 1120.
So far as the record in this case
shows. all of the proceedings relating
o the issuance of these bonds have
been regular and lawful. We must
presume that within reasonable time
he city commission will obey the man.
late of its constituents and sell the
ponds and carry out the several i'm
Drovements ordered by the people in
he election Of December 4. 1923. We
.annot contemplate that the city au-
hOrties are merely playing with the
people of San Antonio by spending
heir money in holding bond elections
With no intention of selling the bonds
when voted.
Now. it may be. technically, speak
ng. that no debt will be created
against the city until these bonds are
sold. but when they are sold debt
will have been created as of the date
II January l. 1924. There will be an
interest installment due, and 1-40 of
he debt will mature on January 1,
1928.
Article NJ of section ) of the Con-
stitution makes it the duty of the
board of commissioners. lit does not
give them the right. tley have no dis
erection in the matter). to assess and
collect annually a sufficient sum to
meet these obligations, not next sum !