Sutliff v. Lake County Commissioners

Me.- Justice Gray, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

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 ./as 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 théir records, open to the inspection of the .public at all tipies, semi-annual statements, exhibiting in detail- the debts,-expenditures :and Receipts' of the county for the preceding six months, and striking the balance so as tó show the amount of any deficit and the balance in the treasury.

. Tf*is stated in the .certificate upon which this case mes *235 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, 92 U. S. 637 ;

Humboldt v. Long, 92 U. S. 642 ;

Dixon County v. Field, 111 U. S. 83 ;

Lake County v. Graham, 130 U. S. 674, 682 ;

Chaffee County v. Potter, 142 U. S. 355, 363 .

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 he determined and concluded, contrary to the facts so recorded, by the officers charged with the duty of- issuing the bonds.

Accordingly, in Dixon County v. Field,■ above cited, which arose under an article of the constitution of Nebraska, limiting the power of a county to issue bonds to ten per cent of the assessed valuation of the county, it was adjudged that a. county *236 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 officers 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.” lll.U. S. 93.

“ 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 táxable 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 no.t stated; but, ex m 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 be.ng known,-the ratio between the two amounts was fixéd by an arithmetical calculation. No recital involving, the amount of the assessed taxable valuation of the property to be taxed for the payment of *237 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 v 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.” Ill U. 8. 95.

That decision and the grounds upon which it rests were approved and affirmed in Lake County v. Graham and Chaffee County 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 County 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 fori 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 . In Chaffee County v. Potter , on the other hand, the bonds ■ con-. tained 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 .

*238 The case at bar does no.t fall within.

Chaffee County v. Potter, and cannot be distinguished'in principle from Dixon County v. Field or from Lake County v. Grahm.

The only difference worthy of notice is that ip. 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 |fby any recitals in the bonds.

It follows^ that the first question certified must he a/nswered m the affirmative^ amd the second in the negative. Ordered accordingly.