Crowhurst v. City Council

California Court of Appeal Aug 31, 1929 No. Docket No. 7086.Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a city council lacks the authority to delay a consolidation election beyond the reasonable timeframe prescribed by the Municipal Consolidation Act of 1913, and must call the election without delay.

Issues

Whether a city council has the discretion to defer a consolidation election for eight months after the petition is certified as sufficient.
Whether political excuses justify a city council's failure to comply with the mandatory 'without delay' provision of the Municipal Consolidation Act.

Disposition. Peremptory writ of mandate issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the legislative body of a city has no judicial power to defer the holding of an election petitioned for in conformity with the requirements of said act, but must without delay call the election”

“the action of the City Council of the City of Albany in fixing the date of the election for a date more than eight months after the passage of the resolution calling the election was in violation of the letter and the spirit of the law.”

THE COURT.

— This is a proceeding in

mandamus

to compel the City Council of the City of Albany and the individual members thereof to submit without delay to the electors of that city at a special election to be called and held pursuant to the provisions of section 2 of the Municipal Consolidation Act of 1913 (Stats. 1913, p. 577) the proposition whether such municipality shall be consolidated with the city of Berkeley.

The electors’ petition filed with the City Council initiating the proceedings for the holding of such election was the second one of its kind to be filed for that purpose. The first was declared illegal by this court on March 15, 1929, upon the ground that it did not conform to the requirements of the statute

(Carter

Green,

97 Cal. App. 564 [276 Pac. 120]). Before the judgment therein became final and on April 8, 1929, a new petition was filed with the City Council, upon which it refused to act on the ground that the legal proceeding involving the validity of the first petition was still pending. Thereupon

mandamus

proceedings were instituted to compel the Council to take action thereon, and on May 20, 1929, Division Two of the District Court of Appeal, District One, held adversely upon all objections raised by the Council, and directed that the writ issue as prayed

(Crowhurst

Green et al.,

99 Cal. App. 58 [277 Pac. 887]). Thereafter and on July 23, 1929, the petition was again brought before the Council, at which time it was referred to the city clerk for certification of the signatures, and on August 12, 1929, the petition was certified as being legally sufficient. On the same day the City Council passed a resolution calling the special election, but fixed April 14, 1930, as the date on which it should be held, which, as will be noted, is more than eight months subsequent to the date of the passage of the resolution calling the election.

Section 2 of said act provides in substance that whenever a petition conforming to the requirements of said act shall be filed with the legislative body of a city, “such

Crowhurst v. City Council

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief