ARK.] SANDERS V. GREEN. 943 SANDERS V. GREEN. 4-8605 214 S. W. 2d 67 Opinion delivered October 18, 1948. 1. Equrrv—JumsnICTIoN.—The chancery court had jurisdiction to enjoin the illegal diversion of funds voted "for the purpose of constructing additions to and remodeling city hospital." 2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS—VOTING FUNDS FOR ERECTION OF HOSPITAL.—Where the city of F submitted to the electors the question whether $76,000 should be voted "for the purpose of constructing additions to or remodeling city hospital" it will, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, be assumed by the appellate court that the ordinance voted on fulfilled the requirements, and that the bond issue was approved by the voters for the specific purpose stated in the ordinance. 3. BoNns—ELECTIoNs—Where at an election held for that purpose the electors voted for an issue of bonds in the amount of $75,000 for the purpose of making additions to or remodeling the city hospital, the funds arising from the sale of the bonds constituted a trust fund to be expended only for the purpose stated in the ordinance approved by the voters at the election. 4. PUBLIC FUNDS—DIVERSION OF.—Where the people of the city of F had voted for a sale of bonds for the purpose of making additions to or remodeling the city hospital an ordinance subsequently passed by the city setting forth that conditions had changed since the election and authorizing the expenditure of the funds arising from the sale of the bonds either independent of or in connection with the present city hospital or the university would constitute a diversion of the funds prohibited by the same amendment under which the bonds were issued. 5. ELECTIoNs—It would have been a vain and idle thing to have permitted an election to be held for the approval or disapproval of ordinance No. 930 when the result of such an election and the approval of the ordinance would have led to a diversion of public funds.
944 SANDERS 9)..GREEN. [213 6. 7 , 1)1...F4p , nlo.=Appellee's.-,complaint -alleging that, the, election to be _. 3.1,lield-for, the ,adOption of-ordinance No;r,930 -by, ;the ciiy .of 'Ae_.eiliehiliti.ir ,e . :0 " the. . farida'otherwiSe 'than-for the riurpoa ; v dte'd 'statetrauff • i die .r h .t" facts to *Cianatiftte-a- datisé . o 17 f • Appellants ,, frorntiol a ipg. - aid election]; 4p-peallfintilWaShi-0 . -g.i tOnrChancery Jblin K. Mitt; Price Dickson, 'for 7- Rex W. Perkins anci_G„_T_Sullins, for appellee. WINE, J. The appellants who are the mayor and aldermen of the Ciff=of-I l aYetteVille and election cora-missioners . andi sheriff of Washington county, Arkansas, bring ibis appeal from an order of the Chancery COurt of that cothafenjoining -the 64:Tenants : J6:;Parks, J. S. Bates: arid; Hanna-,:a s such-_election, commis sioners -oir-ithe-.: -ballot -,for (the general-ror any special elee. tionliOlieldeld oinsthe City-of FayettevillO t the questiWof -the-adoption, or , rejTdtion , of -ani:-ordinance kereinaffeYdTh du s ed; frOM an5-7 -Sneh:VallOt g. clintaining-ithe'Matter aforesaid." 'The appellant,-,Bruce .Crideg,Sheriff, was alsoon,-said,order straine anal enj oined :from:including in, his; :pro cla-mationTof (dleaiono to.r be held'on [Aprir6; 1948;or special election notice of éldolióif as th Ordindifd-CNOs.:c9302'" GoC,, ,The :appellees faro:members- ofthe-D,:fMoard-:-ot.Con-tfol?,-1:Ottlie-,City HoSpitat Ricatedin. the Xity;of:Fayette-'alleVedYin Etheif'origitial thAt 6" g aa---.6p:the'n4 . - is _A--1)60_ficte reSident' .ditizen; :and qualifie4'06rs*flii:bilY Of IF:aiate5vIffefAjlkants a s , ai d:thaf thef iffiled,Krici- 1 / 376§'ectif6:1) 'Meth": bssof,said l3oaid,,of,-,Contr,o1 of-said,City alg oEas-titizensianilqualiTied -electors . of the-City:of -Fay-ettevill e; : -Washinkton Connty -; 'Arkani as: 3:ZE. -_sOn-.;the.- 17th: day7 of : June :prio r the-. filing of this , siiit,-aiis-dleation:was :held in : the-!City of-Payé tteville; to determine tfie'-Wilt -offtlie-Iegal eledforS'Vn't14--cffieRion "Of3Whetlfei-' the' citY affuldr :iAu`e: its ---130;ifdS ot Pi"6:460103.P to,ánd,ten!coAelin.41:(ritk.::13-40:al." the proposal f -or this bond issue received .a:majority of
SANDERS 1.2.-.GREEN: 945 the votes,cast at said election_and thereafter, bonds in the stim` p f $75,000, were-issued:and sold-by; the,City of, FaP etteville-:(fof the specific' purpose forr.Whick theyhad been_ voted) and , the proceeds derived i frorn the sale of theSeibiiii-0-are -nobeld by . : the'CitY:Of Pay i ette+ille in i66:re Tliere:iA 'no 'Ontro , ;;-`61 . si t6 IhiS 'point in , the had and di onethUS , far: .; „i:r, )::;) :; ) On the econd day of YebruarY,`,1-9,48, fOlgwing,the election -andrsale of .these, bonds-the City, Cpuncil ;of Abe City of Fa y etteville passed and published•A/certain:op:1i, nance being numbered 930, the title of which reads as - ) .,)`• "An ordinance subinitting ID the qiialified el '■ e ■ etors of 4he _City; of Fayetteville,- the ques tiDn oti the 'exp endi-tare' of ; ,s event:Y-1 f ive:thOus and. ($75,004; b eing-, the 'pro; ceeds of the sale of the Fayetteville' hospital bonds:--dii recting , the , cx.penditure of ., sa , id , proceeds for3hospital purposes .by_the , City of Fayetteville; _pi:the'', independ i -ently Dr, in cOnnectiOn and_coöPeration . with the ,County of:Washington and the,,UniVersity . of, Arliansas or, either orthein and eitherin connection with:or independent of the present hospital. nown.as ,the City Hospital .and 'for other purposes." ) c, ' • ,In. the hody _of this ' Ordinance No.-.980,- the :bonds previously„Sold.are_reTerred_to_,as a,c1 -volorem bonds and said ordinance further recites : ,said bond ri were.sold-by l the qity,pf-,-Fay-ettevilfArsa,S," , aiicii-nO.icir'f O'f.. the PrOceeds-,.0Esaid sale: , b0e be -en,.ependect,. -, afid_*hereas- conditions:Man afisen •syhich )vere , not contemplated 01 fpieseeii at tlip tithe 'the qUestiori was . 1.1binitted-to fbe7qualified,-eIeqior of..the' City' of Fayetteville .A.r6nsas' and- .:`, ,̀ Whereas..theCityzof Fayetteville-has nv:as-surance tlitat:a- Federal grant-:supplementing:the-,proceedS Ofitho sale- 6f,Ibe.-bospital-,136ndsiyiiillybe',granted;-and -T"'WhCrea,g-the'CitY3o'fFa-ietteirille'enteffaing7Serl'aii doubts that by the expenditure of tbe unsupplemented proceeds of sale, tb:e present City-Hospital can he-remodeled and ;added .0 k:s atis f actory:manner,-anks
946 SANDERS V. GREEN. [213 "Whereas the City of Fayetteville has no assurance that the expenditure of the proceeds of the sale of the hospital bonds in the present location can be justified." At this juncture appellees filed their complaint in equity praying that the court immediately issue its restraining order to each and every one of the defendants (appellants here) commanding them and each of them to, at once, desist and refrain from doing any matter or thing whatever in furtherance of the provisions of said Ordinance No. 930. Appellants filed a demurrer to this complaint setting forth: " (1) That said complaint does not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. " (2) That said complaint does not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action within the jurisdiction of this court." A temporary restraining order was first issued by the court, followed on the 17th day of March, 1948, by a final decree making the temporary order permanent on the basis of the right of equity to prevent a multiplicity of suits. The appellants elected to stand on their demur-rer, refusing to plead further, We think the Chancery Court did have jurisdiction and did .not err in issuing a temporary injunction in overruling appellants' demurrer, nor in making said ins junction permanent. . • While it is a well settled rule of law that equity will, ordinarily, not restrain a municipal corporation in the exercise of 'its legislative power, there are, however, notable exceptions to this rule. 43 Corpus Juris Secun-dum, § 118, p. 649 : "There are exceptions, however, to this doctrine of noninterference, as where the mere passage of the ordinance would immediately occasion, or would be followed by, some irreparable loss or injury beyond the power of redress by subsequent judicial proceedings, or where it would cause a multiplicity of suits 7) Joyce on Injunctions, Vol. I, p. 802, § 518, treats of this exception : " To prevent a multiplicity of suits is a
ARK.] SANDERS V. GREEN. 947 favorite ground for granting injunctive relief in courts of equity. The object to be attained by a resort to a court of equity in such cases is to obtain afinal determination of the particular right in controversy, as between all the parties concerned, by a single issue, instead of leaving the right open to litigation by separate suits brought by each of the parties in interest . The foregoing rule was adopted by this Court in two early Arkansas cases, Floyd v. Gilbreath, et al., 27 Ark. 675, and Greedup, et al., v. Franklin County, et al., 30 Ark. 101. This rule has been followed not only in this, but in other jurisdictions : Second National Bank of Titusville, Pennsylvania, v. Caldwell, et al., 13 Fed. 429, and Fairley v. City of Duluth, et al., 150 Minn. 374, 185 N. W. 390, 32 A. L. R. 1268, which quotes with favor the rule laid down by this Court in Greedup, et al., v. Frank-lin County, et al., supra. There is another more cogent and compelling reason why equity had jurisdiction in this case and why the decree of the Chancery Court is correct ; that is, to prevent a diversion of public funds. The City Council of Fayetteville, by the former ordinance of June 17, 1947, submitted to the voters of that city the question of whether the bond issue of $75,000 should be approved "for the purpose of constructing additions to and remodeling City Hospital." This was submitted to the voters under the provisions of Amendment 13 to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, which gives the voters of the cities of the first and second class (Fayetteville is a city of the first class) the right to vote bonds "for the purchase of sites for, construction of, and equipment of . . . hospitals." This same amendment provides that the ordinance passed by the city council of such cities and submitted to the people for election shall "specifically state the purpose for which the bonds are to be issued, and if for more than one purpose, provisions shall be made in said ordinance for balloting on each separate purpose . . . (italics our own). In the absence of any objection to the contrary, it is by this Court assumed that the former
948 [213 ordinance Voted on June 17, 1947;• fulfilled this requirement, and that the . bond . issue' was approved by the-voters fOr ' the' specific purpose stated in the ' ordinance: The city officials .issued and sold 'the' bOndsv i'eceived "and' now hold the proceeds. TIPis is a trust fund to be experided fOr . the ' p urpose stated in the former . ordinance approved by the voters, Jurie 17, 1947. Now, Tby Ordinance- No. ,930,-it. is soright to enlarge, modify . and materially change the purpose first contemplated and which led to. the existence of the fund now held in trust from the proceeds of the bonds:: To:permit effect lb , be giVen Oidinance No: 930 WOuld -,constitnte. a diversion "of funds SuCh4as is forbidden 'by thiS Santie amendinent No. 13. It would Ii4ve , bedn a STain arid,idle thing' to haVe perraitted'an eleation to be held iin'the latte'r Ordinande. No. 930 *hen the i-eSult- of sUbli 'elenctio and the adoption-of-Ordiriance No-930 WOuld--have'led_to_a diversion of public funds. , We, , therefore,, hold that ap-pellees 'complaint.in equity did.' state sufficient facts-to constitute, a .cause ,of : acti on,7:and, that .t1,1P, clfl6re,e Cl]ancery , dourt was correct . ,arid, should t bg, affiTtned. It is so °blend:.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.