ARK.] KITCHENS V. CITY OF PARAGOULD.-271
KITCHENS V..CITy OF:PARAGOULD. 4-4275'
Opinion delivered . February . 17, 1936. .. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS—CONSTRUCTION 'OF LIGHT PLANT,-Under • constitutional- amendment :No. 13, authorizing-cities of the :first and second class to issue bonds for Construction of light plants, such cities are authorized tO pledge the net revenue derived . from the operation of light plants to payment of ' the bonded iridebted: ness issued in construction-of the plant. ' Appeal:from Greene . Chancery Court ; J. F. Gaactney, Chancellor; affirmed. . , _ . Suit by B. M. Kitchens against the city of Paragould and others. Peeree dismissed the complaint,, and plaim tiff appeals. . W. W. Bandy and Jeff Bratton, for : appellees. HUMPHREYS, J.. The pleadings in this case present , the sole issue of whether a. city . of the first . or 'second class in this State may lawfully and irrevocably pledge the net revenues 'derived :from the 'operation : of 'a municipal light plant :owned by it to better secure the payment of the bonded indebtedness created for the purpose of purchasing the necessary machinerY and equip ment with which to . construct a. municipal light plant:and, distributing system therefor., . The facts are that, pursuant to an- ordinance; duly passed by the city council of ParagoulCI,, the qualified voters of said citY authorized a bond issue' of $100,000 to procure money with which to build and construct an electric light plant in and for said city and to provide a distributing system therefor, and that the city of Para-gould is now ready to accept a loan of $100,000 from the
272 KITCHENS V. CITY OF PARAGOULth [192 P. W. A., and the grant 'of $90,000 with which to pur-. chase the necessary machinery-and equipment to build a: mithicipal light plant and distributing system by pledging the net income therefrom after paying the expense of operation and maintenance to secure the payment of said bond issue. The chancery court ruled that such authority and power existed in the city of Paragould and its officials, and, from the decree dismissing appellant . 's complaint seeking to enjoin theth from pledging the net income to be derived from said plant . for such purpose, an appeal has been duly prosecuted to this court. There is no inhibition in 'our Constitution as originally adopted, or any amendment thereto against cities 6f • he first and second class irrevocably pledging net revenues to be derived from the operation of municipally owned light plants to pay an indebtedness incurred or to be incurred for the construction of light plants and distributing systems. The power and authority to construct snch plants is clearly conferred on cities of the first and second class by amendment No..13 to the Constitution, and to procure the money with which to construct them by an issue of interest-bearing bonds by and with the consent of . a majority of the qualified electors of said muniCipalities. The sense of the qualified voters of Paragould was tested by vote . on January 31, 1933, and a . majority of the legal Voters in said city voted for a bond issue of $100,000 io procure the money to build and construct a light plant, and to provide a distributing system for same. . Certainly, under this broad grant of power, such cities have the power and 'authority to pledge the future net income froM the operation of a light plant and dis-tributhig system to the payment of the bonded indebtedness iSsned in the constrnction of the plant. The decree of tbe chancery court is, therefore, affirmed.
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.