DocketNumber: No. 3234.
Citation Numbers: 259 P. 37, 32 N.M. 309
Judges: PARKER, C.J.
Filed Date: 3/11/1927
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
"The county of De Baca may issue bonds for courthouse purposes to an amount not exceeding $30,000, and for jail purposes to an amount not to exceed $7,500; which
[1] 15CJ p. 612 n. 61. *Page 310 bonds shall be issued in manner as provided by the Constitution of New Mexico, payable absolutely 30 years from their date and at the option of said county 20 years from this date."
It appears that there is an urgent necessity for the construction of a courthouse in which to house the county offices and to protect the records of the county, and in which to hold the district court. It further appears that the board of county commissioners are willing to issue the bonds of the county for this purpose, but doubt their authority to so issue them without submitting the question to a vote of the people, as provided by section 10 of article 9 of the State Constitution. The Board does not otherwise resist the mandamus.
We have twice examined this question in connection with the courthouse and jail bonds of Harding county. Section 18, chapter 8, Laws 1921, is the same as section 17 of the De Baca county act above quoted, except in one important and controlling particular, which will be noted.
In Martinez v. Gallegos et al.,
In the Harding County Case, however, the statute provided that the bonds might be issued in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the state, while in the present case the statute provides merely that the bonds may be issued in the manner provided in the Constitution, omitting all reference to the laws of the state. De Baca county therefore is left without any directions as to the denomination and rate of interest of the bonds and other details which are prescribed *Page 311 by the general statutes. This circumstance renders the statute creating the county inoperative in regard to the issuance of these bonds.
In Lanigan v. Gallup,
It is to be noted, however, that this conclusion in no way interferes with the power of De Baca county to incur indebtedness for courthouse and jail purposes in the same manner as all other counties in the state may do. It simply has no power to proceed under the act creating the county.
It follows that the judgment of the district court is erroneous and should be reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to set aside the judgment and to discharge the writ, and it is so ordered.
BICKLEY and WATSON, JJ., concur.