Sutliff v. Board of County Com'rs of Lake County/Opinion of the Court

by Horace Gray

United States Supreme Court

147 U.S. 230

Sutliff  v.  Board of County Com'rs of Lake County

The constitution as well as the statute of Colorado absolutely forbade a county to issue bonds, under any circumstances, to such an amount as would make the aggregate amount of the indebtedness of the county more than six dollars on each thousand if the assessed valuation of the taxable property in the county was more than five millions of dollars, or twelve dollars if such valuation was less than five and more than one million, and limited the right to issue bonds, without a previous vote of the qualified electors of the county, to half of such rates.

The statute, moreover, required the county commissioners, in submitting the question to a vote of the electors, to enter of record an order specifying the amount required, and the object of the debt, and also made it their duty to publish, and to cause to be entered on their records, open to the inspection of the public at all times, semiannual statements exhibiting, in detail, the debts, expenditures, and receipts of the county for the preceding six months, and striking the balance so as to show the amount of any deficit, and the balance in the treasury.

It is stated in the certificate upon which this case comes before us that, at the time of the issue of the bonds in question, the defendant county was in fact indebted beyond the constitutional and statutory limit, and the issue of each bond, therefore, created a debt in excess of that limit, and that the plaintiff bought the bonds upon the faith of the recitals therein, and without making any examination into the facts appearing on the records of the county.

Upon these facts, in the light of the previous decisions of this court, it is clear that the plaintiff, although a purchaser for value and before maturity of the bonds, was charged with the duty of examining the record of indebtedness provided for in the statute of Colorado, in order to ascertain whether the bonds increased the indebtedness of the county beyond the constitutional limit, and that the recitals in the bonds did not estop the county to prove by the records of the assessment and the indebtedness that the bonds were issued in violation of the constitution.

In those cases in which this court has held a municipal corporation to be estopped by recitals in its bonds to assert that they were issued in excess of the limit imposed by the constitution or statutes of the state, the statutes, as construed by the court, left it to the officers issuing the bonds to determine whether the facts existed which constituted the statutory or constitutional condition precedent, and did not require those facts to be made a matter of public record. Marcy v. Oswego Tp., 92 U.S. 637; Humboldt Tp. v. Long, Id. 642; Dixon Co. v. Field, 111 U.S. 83, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 315; Lake Co. v. Graham, 130 U.S. 674, 682, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 654; Chaffee Co. v. Potter, 142 U.S. 355, 363, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 216.

But if the statute expressly requires those facts to be made a matter of public record, open to the inspection of every one, there can be no implication that it was intended to leave that matter to be determined and concluded, contrary to the facts so recorded, by the officers charged with the duty of issuing the bonds.

Accordingly, in Dixon Co. v. Field, above cited, which arose under an article of the constitution of Nebraska limiting the power of a county to issue bonds to 10 per cent. of the assessed valuation of the county, it was adjudged that a county issuing bonds, each reciting that it was one of a series of $87,000 issued under and by virtue of this article of the constitution and the statutes of Nebraska upon the subject, was not estopped to show by the assessed valuation on the books of public record of the county that the bonds were in excess of the constitutional limit; and Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the unanimous judgment of the court, fully stated the grounds of the decision, which sufficiently appear by the following extracts:

'If the fact necessary to the existence of the authority was by law to be ascertained, not officially by the officer charged with the execution of the power, but by reference to some express and definite record of a public character, then the true meaning of the law would be that the authority to act at all depended upon the actual objective existence of the requisite fact, as shown by the record, and not upon its ascertainment and determination by any one; and the consequence would necessarily follow that all persons claiming under the exercise of such a power might be put to the proof of the fact made a condition of its lawfulness, notwithstanding any recitals in the instrument.' 111 U.S. 93, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 320.

'In the present case there was no power at all conferred to issue bonds in excess of an amount equal to ten per cent. upon the assessed valuation of the taxable property in the county. In determining the limit of power, there were necessarily two factors,-the amount of the bonds to be issued, and the amount of the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation. The amount of the bonds issued was known. It is stated in the recital itself. It was $87,000. The holder of each bond was apprised of that fact. The amount of the assessed value of the taxable property in the county is not stated; but, ex vi termini, it was ascertainable in one way only, and that was by reference to the assessment itself, a public record equally accessible to all intending purchasers of bonds, as well as to the county officers. This being known, the ratio between the two amounts was fixed by an arithmetical calculation. No recital involving the amount of the assessed taxable valuation of the property to be taxed for the payment of the bonds can take the place of the assessment itself; for it is the amount, as fixed by reference to that record, that is made by the constitution the standard for measuring the limit of the municipal power. Nothing in the way of inquiry, ascertainment, or determination as to that fact is submitted to the county officers. They are bound, it is true, to learn from the assessment what the limit upon their authority is, as a necessary preliminary in the exercise of their functions, and the performance of their duty; but the information is for themselves alone. All the world besides must have it from the same source, and for themselves. The fact, as it is recorded in the assessment itself, is extrinsic, and proves itself by inspection, and concludes all determinations that contradict it.' 111 U.S. 95, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 320.

That decision and the grounds upon which it rests were approved and affirmed in Lake Co. v. Graham and Chaffee Co. v. Potter, above cited, each of which arose under the article of the constitution of Colorado now in question, but under a different statute, which did not require the amount of indebtedness of the county to be stated on its records. In Lake Co. v. Graham, each bond showed on its face the whole amount of bonds issued, and the recorded valuation of property showed that amount to be in excess of the constitutional limit; and for this reason, as well as because the bonds contained no recital upon that point, the county was held not to be estopped to plead that limit. 130 U.S. 682, 683, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 654. In Chaffee Co. v. Potter, on the other hand, the bonds contained an express recital that the total amount of the issue did not exceed the constitutional limit, and did not show on their face the amount of the issue, and the county records showed only the valuation of property, so that, as observed by Mr. Justice Lamar, in delivering judgment: 'The purchaser might even know-indeed, it may be admitted that he would be required to know the assessed valuation of the taxable property of the county; and yet he could not ascertain by reference to one of the bonds and the assessment roll whether the county had exceeded its power, under the constitution, in the premises.' 142 U.S. 363, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 216.

The case at bar does not fall within Chaffee Co. v. Potter, and cannot be distinguished in principle from Dixon Co. v. Field or from Lake Co. v. Graham. The only difference worthy of notice is that in each of these cases the single fact required to be shown by the public record was the valuation of the property of the county, whereas here two facts are to be so shown,-the valuation of the property, and the amount of the county debt. But, as both these facts are equally required by the statute to be entered on the public records of the county, they are both facts of which all the world is bound to take notice, and as to which, therefore, the county cannot be concluded by any recitals in the bonds.

It follows that the first question certified must be answered in the affirmative, and the second in the negative. Ordered accordingly.

Notes