City of Oxnard v. Bellah
Before: THE COURT. —
Synopsis
Municipal Corporation — Bonded Debt — Separate Ordinances— Water and Lighting Systems—Single Election—Proper Ballots—Valid Passage—Refusal of Clerk to Countersign Bonds —Mandamus.—Where a municipal corporation made proper estimates fox a separate water system and light system, and passed separate ordinances fixing the amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred in the acquisition of each system, both of which propositions were submitted to the voters at an election held on the same date pursuant to the laws of the state applicable thereto, and a valid election was held thereunder, in which, in the use of proper ballots, two-thirds of the voters voted for the issuance of both kinds of bonds, but the city clerk improperly refused to countersign the same, mandamus will lie to compel him to countersign the bonds so voted for.
[d.—Indebtedness Properly Incurred—Number of Ordinances Immaterial.—The election established a subsisting indebtedness properly incurred, and the statute provides for the incurring of indebtedness for more than one object at the same election. The fact that the ordinances providing for the same election were passed at different dates, and that one ordinance might have been passed for the whole bonded indebtedness, for different purposes, is immaterial in determining the validity of the bonded indebtedness incurred.
Id.—Sufficient Compliance With Statute as to Manner of Election.—There was a sufficient ’compliance with the statute providing that the ordinance calling the election shall fix the manner of voting at the election, where it provided that the ballots should contain the proposition relative to incurring the indebtedness, and that connected therewith shall be printed the words “yes and “no.” This is the manner required by the general laws of the state for the. submission of public questions to the electors, thus clearly fixing the manner of voting for or against the propositions.
Id.—Recital in Ordinances as to Estimated Cost.—The. recital in the ordinances as to the estimated cost is sufficient proof of the estimated cost upon the application for the writ of mandamus, where the affidavit therefor discloses without contradiction that the ordinance was regularly passed.
Id.—Construction of Statute as to Amount of Bonds Under Estimate.—It is held that the statute is not to be construed as making it obligatory upon the trustees to issue- bonds for the full amount of the estimate. They may be issued in a less amount, if in the opinion of the board, such amount only is necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose.
THE COURT.
In mandamus.
The alternative writ was issued by this court upon the filing of an affidavit setting forth that the petitioner, a municipal corporation, through its board of trustees, employed certain engineers to assist in making estimates of the cost of a proposed municipal water system for the city; that after consultation with such engineers the board of trustees made an estimate that the cost
[35]
of such proposed water system would amount to $107,513.76; that thereafter the board, by an ordinance adopted February 6, 1912, determined and declared that the public interest and necessity demanded the acquisition, construction, and completion of such improvement; that the estimated cost of the same is $107,513.76; that such cost is too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of said city, and that it is the intention of the board of trustees of said city to call a special election for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of the city of Oxnard the proposition of incurring a debt in the sum of one hundred thousand dollars for. the purpose of acquiring, constructing, and completing such municipal waterworks, which ordinance was duly published. Thereafter, the board of trustees by resolution called a special election to be held on the fifth day of April, 1912, for the purpose of incurring on the part of said city of Oxnard a debt for the purposes set forth in the ordinance above referred to. By section 2 of said resolution it was stated that said proposition to be voted on at said election is the following, to wit: The issuing of bonds of the city of Oxnard in the sum of one hundred thousand dollars in accordance with the laws of the state; and further providing for the number and denomination of the bonds and rate of interest they were to bear, and that such interest should be payable semi-annually on the first day of June and the first day of December of each year. On the thirteenth day of February, 1912, the board of trustees passed another and further ordinance determining that the public interest and necessity demanded the acquisition by said city of a certain other municipal improvement, to wit: the acquisition, construction, and completion of a municipal lighting system, the estimated cost of which is $31,607.98, which ordinance was duly passed, signed and published; and an election was to be held in said city of Oxnard on the fifth day of April for the purpose of voting thereat upon the proposition of incurring a debt upon the part of said city for the purpose set forth in said ordinance. By section 2 of said ordinance it was provided that bonds should be issued in the sum of thirty thousand dollars, giving the denomination thereof, the rate of interest and when payable. The substantial form of the bond in each instance was set forth in the ordinance.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)