Barnes v. City Council of Long Beach

PRESTON, J.

—The issue of law here before us is presented by a petition for writ of mandate, with general demurrer thereto. Petitioner is a property owner in a disputed area which is either in or near the city of Long Beach, county of Los Angeles, state of California. Respondents are the City Council of the said city and the individual members constituting said council.

The petition recites proceedings in due and regular form under the act of March 20, 1889, as amended by the act of April 22, 1927, in effect July 29, 1927 (Stats. 1927, p. 421), to exclude from the municipality of Long Beach certain territory therein described, known as the West Shoestring Strip Exclusion District. Elections were regularly called and voting occurred both in the exclusion district and in the remaining area of the city and decisive majorities re-, suited in both areas in favor of exclusion. As required by statute, the City Council met following said elections, canvassed said returns and declared said results. But the statute imposes upon said Council a further duty, to wit: that said body “shall, by an order entered upon their minutes, cause their clerk or other officer performing the duties of clerk, to make and transmit to the secretary of state a certified abstract of such vote, which abstract shall show” certain things set forth in said statute and “from and after the date of filing such abstract, such exclusion of territory from such municipal corporation shall be deemed complete, and thereafter such territory shall cease to be a part of such municipal corporation.”

[164]

The City Council refused to issue the order directing the city clerk to transmit to the secretary of state a certified abstract of the vote taken at said elections and the other data required by said provision of the statute, this step being necessary to make effective the result of such elections, and this suit for writ of mandate followed.

The chief reason assigned by respondents for refusal to comply with this provision of the statute is that such territory proposed to be excluded was never a part of said city of Long Beach. This contention arises out of the following facts: In 1923, pursuant to the act of 1913 (Stats. 1913, p. 587) a territory known as Greater Long Beach was supposed to have been annexed to the city of Long Beach. This proceeding for annexation became effective in January, 1924. The West Shoestring Strip Exclusion District is a part of that area and the contention is that such part of said area was uninhabited and noncontiguous territory within the meaning of said act, and thus the whole proceeding failed and became a nullity. Justification of the position of respondents is further sought in the fact that one, A. C. Brown, and others, among whom is petitioner, have an action pending which has for its purpose the securing of a judgment declaring the whole of said annexation scheme a nullity.