Mills v. Board of Trustees

California Court of Appeal Nov 27, 1917 No. Civ. No. 2499.Published

Before: Works

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a board of trustees has no legal duty to call a special election under the Wyllie Act until the city clerk files a written certificate of the petition's sufficiency, and that such duty cannot be triggered by constructive knowledge of the clerk's unofficial findings. Because the clerk failed to file the required certificate within the statutory timeframe, the board was not obligated to call a special election.

Issues

Whether a board of trustees has a duty to call a special election before the city clerk files a written certificate of the petition's sufficiency.
Whether the board of trustees can be held to have constructive knowledge of the clerk's unofficial examination of a petition.
Whether the board of trustees is required to call a special election when the clerk's certificate is filed after the statutory deadline.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“no duty was incumbent upon the board of trustees, by way of submitting to the people the proposition contained in the petition for an election, until the filing of the clerk’s written certificate”

“They were called upon to act only when a written certificate by the clerk should be filed showing the petition sufficient.”

Synopsis

APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandamus originally made to the District Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District to compel a board of city trustees to call a special election.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

WORKS, J.,

pro

tem.

This controversy arises under the provisions of an act of the legislature familiarily known as the Wyllie Act, found in the Statutes of 1911 at page 599 and also printed in Deering’s General Laws as Apt 1696.

Section 1 of the statute provides, to quote so much of it only as bears upon this case, that “qualified electors of any incorporated city . . . numbering not less than twenty-five per cent of the number of votes cast for all candidates for

[425]

Governor, ... in the city ... at the last preceding election for Governor, . . . may petition the . . . board of trustees ... of such city . . .'to call an election to vote upon the question, whether the sale of alcoholic liquors shall be licensed in such city. ...”

Section 4 is as follows: “Upon the filing of said petition the clerk of the body to which it is addressed shall forthwith examine it, and from the great register ascertain whether or not said petition is signed by the requisite number of qualified electors of the territory described therein, and, if necessary, he shall be allowed extra help for that purpose, and within ten days from the date of filing such petition he shall certify in writing the result of such examination and shall file this certificate with the petition. If the clerk finds the number of qualified signers to be insufficient, he shall immediately send a written notice to the person who filed the petition, stating the number of qualified signers he has found thereon, and that they are not sufficient; and the petition may be amended within ten days from the date of such notice by the filing of a supplementary petition. The clerk shall, within ten days after such amendment, make like examination and certification of the amended petition. If it is still found insufficient he shall notify the person who filed the petition of that fact, without prejudice, however, to the filing of a new petition to the same effect. If the petition shall be certified as sufficient, the legislative or governing body having jurisdiction over the territory described therein shall, within the time prescribed herein, call an election to be held in such territory to vote upon the question whether the sale of alcoholic liquors shall be licensed therein.”

Mills v. Board of Trustees

AI Brief

Synopsis

WORKS, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief