103 Kan. 287 | Kan. | 1918
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The action was one by taxpayers to enjoin the city from issuing bonds for the construction of a combined water and electric light plant. . An injunction was refused, and the plaintiffs appeal.
The proposition submitted at the bond election was to issue bonds for the purpose of constructing works consisting of a combined water and electric light plant to supply the city and its inhabitants with water and electric light. It is contended this was a dual proposition. Plainly, the proposition was single — the construction of a single plant combining in its functions services usually performed by separate works.
The principal. contention is that no statutory authority existed for the issuance of bonds for the construction of a combined water and electric light plant. Such authority is found in chapter 75 of the Laws of 1913 (Gen. Stat. 1915, § 825), which took effect on February 20, 1913. It is claimed, however, that this act was nullified by another passed at the same session, chapter 123 of the Laws of 1913 (Gen. Stat. 1915, § 853), which was approved on March 13, 1913, and took effect
Some of the details of the bond election proceedings are criticized, but no irregularities occurred of sufficient consequence to require the district court to restrain issuance of the bonds, and its judgment is affirmed.