Court Opinion

ID: 3309948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 17:23:35.220268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:59.114403
License: Public Domain

I concur in the foregoing opinion.
I wish to add, however, that, in my opinion, the vote of the people, by which the city was authorized to sell the bonds at a price not less than par, constituted a part, and a material part, of the contract evidenced by the bonds, as stated inMerchants Nat. Bank v. Escondido Irr. Dist., 144 Cal. 329, [77 P. 937]. The city is the nominal obligor or promisor on the bonds. It has no authority to *Page 770 
make the promise and issue the bonds, except such as it obtained by this vote, and that authority was conditioned that the buyer of the bonds, the promisee, should pay to the city at least the par value as the consideration thereof. The real payers of the bonds are the people who pay the taxes levied to raise the fund for that purpose. They are, under the constitutional scheme, in substance and effect the principals whose authority must be first given, in order to authorize their agent, the city, to make the contract. This authority, as evidenced by the records of the election at which the authority was given, must be considered as a part of the contract, at least to the extent that the conditions therein stated cannot be disregarded by the city in selling the bonds, nor by the purchaser at the sale, and this being so, it necessarily follows that an act of the legislature purporting to authorize a disregard thereof would, if valid, impair a material portion of the contractual obligation.