State ex rel. City of O'Neill v. Marsh

Nebraska Supreme Court

State ex rel. City of O'Neill v. Marsh

184 N.W. 135, 106 Neb. 547, 1921 Neb. LEXIS 241

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 15, 1921

DocketNo. 22121

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 184 N.W. 135 (State ex rel. City of O'Neill v. Marsh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. City of O'Neill v. Marsh, 184 N.W. 135, 106 Neb. 547, 1921 Neb. LEXIS 241 (Neb. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

J jETTON, J.

This is a mandamus proceeding brought to compel the auditor of public accounts to register certain bonds of the city of O’Neill in the sum of $19,000 issued for the purpose of maintaining and extending the water-works of the city. The respondent refused to register the bonds for the following reasons: First, that the bond election was called by the council by the adoption of a resolution, and not by the passage of an ordinance. While there have been some slight changes in the statute since the decision in State v. Babcock, 20 Neb. 522, we are convinced that the changes do not materially alfect the question presented, that the reasoning of that case still applies, and that the council had power to call the election bv resolution. Second, that the notice, which called for the election to be held at “the regular polling places in said city,’’ was defective, and was not sufficient notice to the electors of the locality of the'polling place. This identical question was presented in Hurd v. City of Fairbury, 87 Neb. 745, and was decided against the respondent’s contention. The decision governs in this case.

Further complaint is made that the history presented does not show the appointment of judges and clerks of election; In the absence of affirmative evidence to the contrary, the court will presume that the judges and clerks were either legally appointed or were de facto officers. A peremptory writ of mandamus is allowed as prayed.

Writ allowed.

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

J jETTON, J.

This is a mandamus proceeding brought to compel the auditor of public accounts to register certain bonds of the city of O’Neill in the sum of $19,000 issued for the purpose of maintaining and extending the water-works of the city. The respondent refused to register the bonds for the following reasons: First, that the bond election was called by the council by the adoption of a resolution, and not by the passage of an ordinance. While there have been some slight changes in the statute since the decision in State v. Babcock, 20 Neb. 522, we are convinced that the changes do not materially alfect the question presented, that the reasoning of that case still applies, and that the council had power to call the election bv resolution. Second, that the notice, which called for the election to be held at “the regular polling places in said city,’’ was defective, and was not sufficient notice to the electors of the locality of the'polling place. This identical question was presented in Hurd v. City of Fairbury, 87 Neb. 745, and was decided against the respondent’s contention. The decision governs in this case.

Further complaint is made that the history presented does not show the appointment of judges and clerks of election; In the absence of affirmative evidence to the contrary, the court will presume that the judges and clerks were either legally appointed or were de facto officers. A peremptory writ of mandamus is allowed as prayed.

Writ allowed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 N.W. 135, 106 Neb. 547, 1921 Neb. LEXIS 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-city-of-oneill-v-marsh-neb-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack