State ex rel. Bassett v. Renick

37 Mo. 270
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedFebruary 15, 1866
StatusPublished
Cited by36 cases

This text of 37 Mo. 270 (State ex rel. Bassett v. Renick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Bassett v. Renick, 37 Mo. 270 (Mo. 1866).

Opinion

Holmes, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a petition for a mandamus on the mayor of the city of St. Joseph, requiring him to sign and issue certain bonds of the city. The return admits the facts stated in the petition. By the Act of the General Assembly of Missouri of the 19th of December, 1865, it was provided that the mayor and council of the city of St. Joseph should cause all propositions “ to create a debt by borrowing money [272]*272for any purpose whatsoever,” to be submitted “to a vote of the qualified voters of said city,” and that in all such cases it should require “ two-thirds of such qualified voters to sanction the same.” In pursuance of this act, the city council passed an ordinance authorizing the bonds of the city to be issued, to the amount of fifty thousand dollars, for the improvement of streets in the city, and making it the duty of the mayor and city register to issue any number of the bonds so authorized to be issued to any citizen or citizens who might be willing to take the same, the proceeds to be applied to the purposes expressed in the ordinance; and it was further provided that the ordinance should be submitted “to a vote of the qualified voters in the city of St. Joseph, on Saturday, the 13th day of January, 1866, at the usual places of holding elections in the different wards of the city,” in accordance with the provisions of the charter and laws of the city then in force. On that day an election was held, and it appears by the certificate of the city register that four hundred and four votes were polled, of which three hundred and thirty-six votes were in favor of the ordinance, and fifty-eight votes against it. It appeared also that at the last previous general election held in this city, in April, 1864, the whole number of votes polled was three hundred and thirty-eight.

The only reason given by the mayor for declining to sign the bond in question was, that he was in doubt whether the matter was to be determined by two-thirds of all the votes polled at the special election, or by two-thirds of all the voters resident in the city, absolutely, whether voting or not. We think it was sufficient that two-thirds of all the qualified voters who voted at the special election, authorized for the express purpose of determining that question, on public notice duly given, voted in favor of the proposition. This was the mode provided by law for ascertaining the sense of the qualified voters of the city upon that question. There would appear to be no o|her practicable way in which the matter could be determined.

[273]*273A peremptory mandamus will be ordered.

Judge Wagner concurs ; Judge Lovelace absent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Opinion No.
Arkansas Attorney General Reports, 2004
Glover v. Hot Springs Kennel Club
323 S.W.2d 902 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1959)
State Ex Inf. Ewing v. Sheridan Consolidated School District
274 S.W. 1073 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1925)
In Re Poindexter v. Pettis County
246 S.W. 38 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1922)
Lawrence County v. Lawrence Fiscal Court
229 S.W. 139 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1921)
Bauch v. City of Cabool
148 S.W. 1003 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1912)
Bell v. City of Ocala
62 Fla. 431 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1911)
Ray v. Armstrong
131 S.W. 1039 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1910)
Fabro v. Town of Gallup
15 N.M. 108 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1909)
Treat v. De Jean
118 N.W. 709 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1908)
Town of Southington v. Southington Water Co.
69 A. 1023 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1908)
Tucker v. McKay
111 S.W. 867 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1908)
Shearer v. Board of Supervisors
87 N.W. 789 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1901)
In re Denny
51 L.R.A. 722 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1901)
Wells v. Ragsdale
29 S.E. 165 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1897)
Citizens of De Soto Parish v. Williams
37 L.R.A. 761 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1897)
Green v. State Board of Canvassers
47 P. 259 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1896)
Sharp v. George
46 P. 212 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1896)
Russie v. Brazzell
30 S.W. 526 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1895)
Richardson v. McReynolds
21 S.W. 901 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 Mo. 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-bassett-v-renick-mo-1866.