Court Opinion

ID: 9543095
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:42:04.398696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:40.059637
License: Public Domain

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ADAIR
(specially concurring):
Certain established principles and rules of construction, not canvassed by the briefs filed, are here controlling, viz:
1. A city of this state has only such authority as is conferred upon it by express legislative declaration or by necessary implication. Shapard v. City of Missoula, 49 Mont. 269, 278, 141 Pac. 544; Sharkey v. City of Butte, 52 Mont. 16, 19, 155 Pac. 266; state ex rel. City of Billings v. Billings Gas Co., 55 Mont. 102, 108, 173 Pac. 799; State ex rel. Great Falls Housing-Authority v. City of Great Falls, 110 Mont. 318, 328, 100 Pac. (2d) 915.
2. Powers conferred upon a municipality cannot be enlarged by liberal construction. Van Eaton v. Town of Sidney, 211 Iowa 986, 231 N. W. 475, 477, 71 A. L. R. 820, 825.
3. All powers conferred are to be strictly construed. Van Eaton v. Town of Sidney, supra.
4. Where a statute confers certain specific powers, those not enumerated are withheld. City of Bozeman v. Merrell, 81 Mont. 19, 25, 261 Pac. 876; Van Eaton v. Town of Sidney, supra; City of Dubuque v. Meuser, 239 Iowa 446, 31 N. W. (2d) 882, 886; Jensen v. Town of Afton, 59 Wyo. 500, 143 Pac. (2d) 190, 195.
5. A doubtful power is a power denied. Otherwise stated,— a doubt as to the existence of a particular power will be resolved against the city and the right to exercise the power withheld and denied. State ex rel. Quintin v. Edwards, 40 Mont. 287, 303,106 Pac. 695, 20 Ann. Cas. 239; State ex rel. City of Billings v. Billings Gas Co., supra; Wibaux Improvement Co. v. Breitenfeldt, 67 Mont. 206, 208, 215 Pac. 222; City of Bozeman v. Merrell, supra; 1 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, 2d Ed., Rev., sec. 368; Fullerton v. Central Lincoln People’s Utility Dist., 185 Ore. 28, 201 Pac. (2d) 524, 528.
6. A municipal corporation may not issue bonds under an implied power; it must have express power therefor. Van *18Baton v. Town of Sidney, supra; Fullerton v. Central Lincoln People’s Utility Dist., supra; 64 C. J. S., Municipal Corporations, sec. 1902, p. 475, notes 19-25.
7. The reason for the foregoing rules is that it must be presumed that the state has granted in clear and unmistakable terms all that it intended to grant at all. State ex rel. Quintin v. Edwards, supra, 40 Mont. at page 303, 106 Pac. 695, 20 Ann, Cas. 239.
8. “The right of a municipality to issue bonds is not a political or governmental power, but is rather a private corporate power conferred for local purposes. The issuance of -general bonds to be paid for by general taxation is, however, recognized as a governmental act.” Emphasis supplied. 64 C. J. S., Municipal Corporations, sec. 1902, p. 476, notes 30-35.
R. C. M. 1947, section 11-906, conferring upon cities the power to lay out, establish, open, alter, widen, extend, grade, pave or otherwise improve streets, alleys, avenues, sidewalks, parks and public grounds and vacate the same, does not expressly grant to municipalities the power to issue bonds to provide money for such purposes. Hence under the above stated rules and principles and the authorities cited the power to issue bonds therefore not being enumerated has been and is withheld and denied. Added strength is given this construction and holding by R. C. M. 1947, sections 11-2201 to 11-2281, which expressly provide for the financing of such improvements through special improvement districts, section 11-2231 providing for the issuance of bonds by such improvement districts, and sections 11-2205 and 11-2214 authorizing such districts to include lots not fronting on the street to be improved when benefited by the improvement. Express means are thus provided for obtaining the improvements other than the issuance of general bonds therefor. Under the statutes as they now read, the method so expressly provided by the legislature mu,st be held to be exclusive.
The trial court’s orders allowing defendants’ demurrer and *19motion to quash, being erroneous, must be set aside and vacated and I concur in the reversal of the judgment of dismissal.
Rehearing denied June 9, 1950.