recognizing that the treasury held certain funds in trust for the Board of Public Buildings, and that such funds need not be appropriated according to the spending priorities mandated in art. Ill, sec. 36
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that the treasury held certain funds in trust for the Board of Public Buildings, and that such funds need not be appropriated according to the spending priorities mandated in art. Ill, sec. 36
- transaction did not constitute issuance of bonds for "liability of the state" where there was no obligation to satisfy a debt through general taxation, the payment of the bonds was contingent on the appropriation by the legislature of moneys that would be used to pay the bonds
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STORCKMAN, Judge
(dissenting).
In my opinion the proceeds of the reve-, nue bonds in question are not “revenue collected and money received by the state” within the meaning of Art. III, § 36, of the Constitution of Missouri, and therefore need not go into the state treasury and be subject to appropriation. It is my view that the Board of Public Buildings is legally entitled to hold such proceeds in trust and to use them without appropriation for the purposes which the general assembly has previously authorized and designated by §§ 8.370 to 8.450, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. State ex rel. Thompson v. Board of Regents for Northeast Missouri State Teachers’ College, 305 Mo. 57 , 264 S.W. 698, 699-700 [1-4]. I can see no valid distinction between the proceeds of the revenue bonds and the rental revenue of the completed office building which the Board is authorized to collect and apply to the payment of the bonds.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the opinion which holds to the contrary.