130 Ky. 587 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1908
Opinion of the Court by
Affirming.
The fiscal court of -Lawrence county levied taxes for county purposes for the year of 1903, as follows: Twenty cents on each $100, as a common fund, which we - understand to be the ordinary expenses of the county, such as salaries to officers, and other items of fixed liability, which may include care of the poor; 20 cents on the $100 as a road and bridge fund; 10 cents on the $100 as a sinking fund; also a poll tax of $1.50, to be used as a part of the common fund. For the year 1904 there was levied 50 cents on the $100 apportioned as follows: Twenty-five cents as the “common fund,” and 25 cents as a road and bridge
Even if it should be conceded that the claims alluded to in the order of the October term of 1906 of the fiscal court which is the subject of this suit were those allowed in 1903 or 1904, it would not follow that the order is void. It is not charged, nor is it pretended, that the claims allowed in 1903 or 1904 were in excess of the income or revenues provided for either of those years. It is not necessary to the validity of a municipal indebtedness that the municipality shall have made provision for its payment. The inhibition is against creating an indebtedness in any year that the municipality is unable to pay out its resources for that year. If the liabilities incurred, say in 1903, did not exceed the income and revenues provided by law — that is, the maximum which under the law the county was authorized to levy in taxes — plus any available funds it had on hands, then nothing subsequently occurring could render the liability void as being in contravention of section 157, supra. If the county had collected the taxes levied for the purpose of paying its liabilities incurred in 1903, but had in some way lost the money before it paid its debts, that fact could not affect its liabilities. It would remain bound until payment, or otherwise legally discharged. So, when the county lost the taxes levied for 1903, as it evidently did, but subsequently recovered some $9,000 of them, it was proper,- to say the- least of it, that the $9,00D
Appellant also contends that section 180 of the Constitution is violated by the order of the fiscal court which is under investigation, in this: That the provision of section 180 requiring every resolution levying a tax to specify the purpose for which it is levied, and prohibiting its appropriation to any other purpose, means that the levy of 1907 is. to pay eo nomine the debts contracted in 1906 payable out of the levy of 1907, and that those revenues can not be appropriated for any other yean But the Constitution does not confine the revenues of a year to the payment of the liabilities incurred during that year. "What sec
Judgment affirmed.