Worth v. Downey

California Court of Appeal Sep 25, 1925 No. Docket No. 5095.Published

Before: Curtis

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that recall petitions substantially complied with the statutory requirements despite failing to use the exact language of the statute, as they requested the board to initiate the recall proceedings provided by law.

Issues

Whether recall petitions are invalid for failing to explicitly include a demand for the election of a successor to the officer sought to be removed.
Whether recall petitions are invalid for failing to include the business or occupation of the signers.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The petitions, therefore, if not in the precise words of the statute, yet, in language broad enough to include the statutory requirements, do contain a demand for the election of successors to the trustees”

“The statute, under which these proceedings were instituted, should be liberally construed with the view to promote the purpose for which it was enacted.”

“We are, therefore, of the opinion that each of said petitions substantially complies with the statute in question, and is therefore valid.”

[437]

CURTIS, J.

Three petitions, asldng for the recall of three members of the board of trustees of the city of Lynwood, were filed with the clerk of said board of trustees. The trustees sought to be removed thereby were Prank M. Downey, Lars C. Anderson and Charles P. Reed. These petitions were precisely alike, except" as to the name of the trustee sought to be removed. That against Trustee Downey was as follows:

“Petition for the Recall of Prank M. Downey, Trustee of the City of Lynwood, California.

“To the President of the Board of Trustees of the City of Lynwood, California:

“Gentlemen:

“We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the said City of Lynwood, California, pursuant to the constitution and laws of the State of California, hereby petition Your Honorable Board to take such proceedings as are therein provided to recall Prank M. Downey, Trustee of the City of Lynwood, upon the following grounds, to-wit:

“Prank M. Downey has failed to establish or maintain public confidence in himself as City Trustee.

“He has not intelligently planned or successfully maintained our city’s progress.

“He has been unable to properly grasp the present needs of the City of Lynwood, or vision its future.

“He has not the necessary training or experience required to properly manage the development of the city’s growth.

“Por the above reasons, believing that he has not made good as City Trustee, and that his continuance in office will serve only to retard municipal progress, destroy civic harmony, discredit the laws and government of our city, and to nullify the sacrifice which members of the Board of Trustees are making in civic service, we petition the recall of Prank M. Downey.”

Each of these petitions was certified as sufficient by the clerk of said board and submitted to said board of trustees. The board of trustees, however, refused to call any election under said petitions and this proceeding was instituted in the superior court of the county of Los Angeles for a writ of mandate to compel said board to call such election. Upon the trial of said action judgment was rendered in

Worth v. Downey

AI Brief

CURTIS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief