Court Opinion

ID: 9831449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:07:02.640878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:34.923680
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In the motion for rehearing the appellant insists that we were in error in stating in the opinion that a budget was prepared and filed with the city secretary for the years 1931 to 1933, inclusive. The point made is that the alleged budget, although labeled as such, was nothing more than a financial statement of past expenditures for the current year; that such al-' leged budget was submitted only for the years 1932 and . 1933; that the ones introduced in evidence did not show a file mark as having been filed with the city secretary; and that no budget, or anything purporting to be one, was filed for the year 1931. In view of our holding that failure to prepare and file a budget would not invalidate the tax levy, it is, of course, immaterial whether or not the purported budget was sufficient to satisfy the Budget Law.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.