City of Los Angeles v. Hance
Before: Harrison
Synopsis
Municipal Corporation—Election for Issuance of Bonds—Mandatory-Ordinance— Misdirection to Voters—Clerical Error—Control of Ballots.—At an election for the issuance of the bonds of a municipal corporation for public improvements, the ordinance providing for the manner of voting is mandatory, and must control the voters, notwithstanding a misdirection to them caused by a clerical error in drafting the ordinance.
Id.—Vote Upon High School and General Public School Bonds— Contrary Direction in Ordinance—Carried Vote Defeated.— Under an ordinance providing for high school bonds, “to be voted for or against as ‘general public school bonds,’ ” and for bonds for public school buildings other than a high school, “to-be voted for or against as ‘high school bonds,’ ” the contrary directions in the ordinance are deemed to be followed by the voters, and where the “high school bonds” on the ballots cast are defeated, and the “general public school bonds” on the ballots are carried, no bonds can be lawfully issued for public school buildings, other than a high school.
HARRISON, J.
The city of Los Angeles took certain proceedings for the issuance of municipal bonds for public improvements, under the act of March 19, 1889 (Stats. 1889, p. 399), and adopted an ordinance submitting to the voters of the city the question whether the bonds should be issued. The city council, having declared that a majority of two-thirds of the voters had voted in favor of their issuance, passed an ordinance for their issuance and sale. Bonds were .thereupon prepared and signed by the mayor and treasurer, as required by the ordinance, and presented to the respondent, as clerk of the city council, with the demand that he countersign the same and affix thereto the corporate seal of the city. Upon his refusal so to do this proceeding was instituted for a writ of mandate compelling him thereto. The superior court denied the application for the writ, and the city has appealed.
The proceedings had by the city council were as follows: July 7, 1899, the city adopted an ordinance declaring that the public interest and necessity demanded the following municipal improvements: 1. The acquisition of land and the construction thereon of a high school building, of which the estimated cost was two hundred and twenty thousand dollars; 2. The acquisition of land and the construction thereon of public school buildings, other than a high school, of which the estimated cost was two hundred thousand dollars; and that the cost of such improvements was too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of the city. After these ordinances had been published for two weeks the city council, on July 24th, adopted another ordinance providing for the holding of a spe
[280]
cial election for the purpose of voting for or against the issuing of bonds for the payment of the cost of these improvements. In this ordinance the council declared its intention to submit to the qualified voters of the city the proposition of incurring a bonded indebtedness as follows: 1. Bonds in the amount of two hundred and twenty thousand dollars for the purpose of acquiring land and constructing thereon a high school -building, “said bonds to be voted for or against as ‘general public school bonds’
'2.
Bonds in the sum of two hundred thousand dollars for the acquisition of land and the construction thereon of public school buildings other than a high school, “said bonds to be voted for or against as ‘high school bonds’ and ordered that a special election be held August
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)