Court Opinion

ID: 9809440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:13:53.731213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:36.305329
License: Public Domain

Clare:, C. J.,
concurring in result: "When the General Assembly authorizes the issue of bonds by the State or a-county, township, municipality, or board, the duties of the commissioners or boards authorized to issue such bonds are restricted in issuing the bonds to the amount and in the manner prescribed by the statute. When the bonds are offered for sale this must be done in compliance with the terms prescribed by the statute. If the highest bidder afterwards declines to take the bonds, the only question which can be presented is whether or not the bonds are a valid indebtedness, and regularly issued in accordance with the terms of the statute.
There is no authority conferred upon the commissioners of a county, or any board, to make private contracts with bidders containing stipulations as to matters not set forth in the statute.
If such stipulations as that they shall meet the approval of the lawyers for the bidders were valid, that would raise simply the question whether such lawyer is of that opinion, and if he rejects the bonds that ends the controversy. There is nothing for the courts to pass upon.
To permit the commissioners, or boards, to make outside agreements that bonds shall meet the views of the bidders in matters not prescribed by the statute would be to recognize in them ultra vires powers, and it would give to the counsel of the bidders power to raise any moot question which their fancy or whim may suggest.
This Court has been very slow to answer inquiries of the Legislature on hypothetical questions, and it will only do so in grave matters requiring such action. We certainly should not recognize the unrestricted power of counsel for bidders to raise any question they see fit, and by taking an adverse view to the officers authorized to sell the bonds, present to the courts for decision any whimsical or fanciful moot question which *334they may desire. We have always refused requests for instruction by sheriffs, executors and administrators, or for the construction of wills when no direct judgment was required.
It would seem that the proper course to pursue in such cases is to treat the attempted contract as null and void, because not authorized by the statute, and to dismiss the proceeding. The sole question which can legally be presented to the courts, in my judgment, is whether the bonds are a valid indebtedness and issued in conformity with the provisions of the statute in every respect. Beyond that we have no authority to go, and should not gratify the curiosity or discuss the theories of those who wish to raise other questions.
The bidder, in this case, knew the amount of the levy authorized. Whether it will or will not raise sufficient revenue in the future to meet the indebtedness, and whether or not serial bonds would' be a better investment, were matters for the consideration of the bidder before bidding, but in nowise affect the validity or regularity of the bonds which are the only questions the courts are authorized to decide.