City of San Luis Obispo v. Fitzgerald
Before: Van Dyke
Synopsis
■ PETITION for writ of mandate from the Supreme Court to the Treasurer of the City of San Luis Obispo.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
VAN DYKE, J.
—This is an original application to this court for a writ of mandate to compel the treásurer uf the city of San Luis Obispo to accept from the said D. J. Harris the purchase money for certain bonds of said city, and to issue to said Harris said bonds. The defendant’s refusal is based upon the ground that the election held for the issuance of said bonds was illegal and void.
Any city, town, or municipal corporation is authorized to incur indebtedness to pay the cost of any municipal improvement, requiring an expenditure greater than allowed by the annual tax levy, whenever the legislative authorities of said city or town, by a two-thirds vote of the members thereof, shall determine that the public interest or necessity requires the same. (Act March 19, 1889, Stats. 1889, p. 399.) The act in question prescribes that an ordinance he passed by said city or town as therein specified, calling a special election to submit to the qualified voters thereof the proposition of incurring the debt for the purpose set forth in the ordinance, and provides that no question other than such proposition shall be submitted at that election; and it further requires that the votes of two-thirds of all the voters voting at such special election shall be necessary to authorize the issuance of the bonds provided for.
The city of San Luis Obispo, March 20, 1899, passed an ordi
[281]
nance, numbered 107, set forth in the petition herein, requiring a special election under the act referred to, submitting to the voters of said city the proposition of incurring a debt and bonding the city for certain municipal improvements, namely, water works and sewers. Section 6 of the ordinance reads as follows:
“The manner of holding said election shall be as folkrws: 1. As provided by law for holding elections in said city; 2. As provided by the general election laws of this state, except where such general laws may conflict with the state law for elections of the kind hereby called, or with this or any ordinance of this city; and 3. As provided for in this ordinance. The voting for and against said indebtedness shall be as follows: Tickets must be of ordinary election ticket paper, 6x12 inches (variations in size permitted as in said general election law); the heading of such tickets must be, T3ond Election, City of San Luis Obispo’; each proposition set forth in section 2 of this ordinance shall be voted on separately, and must be printed on such tickets as follows:
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)