|
14.07 MUIVIC[PAL CORPORATIONS iQ
<br />'Illinois. Chicago v. Powers, 42 Iii
<br />169; Waukegan v. Drobnic , 61111 App2d
<br />889 209 NE2d 24.
<br />Indian . Delphi v. Lowery, 74 Ind 520
<br />(report on damage action on account of
<br />defective highway).
<br />Nebraska, Clarke v. Williams, 29
<br />b 691 (city engineer's estirna.tes).
<br />Pennsylvania. Wain v. Philadelphia,
<br />99 Pa 330.
<br />I�
<br />Texas. First Baptist Church v. Fort
<br />Worth (Tex Com App), 28 SW2d 196 (as-
<br />sessor's certificate to assesrnent roll).
<br />Washington. Nelson v. Seattle, 180
<br />Wash 1, 38 P2d 1034.
<br />Indiana. Milford v. Po sner, 126 In
<br />528, 22 NE 484.
<br />Missouri. Aurora Water Co. v_ Aro-
<br />ra, 129 Mo 641, 31 SW 946.
<br />New Jersey. Salmon v. Haynes, fro
<br />L 97, 11 A 151.
<br />41 Massachusetts. Dudley v_ Weston,
<br />1 Mete 477; Collins v. Dorchester, 6 Cush
<br />396.
<br />4 California. Harrigan v. Chaperon,
<br />118 Cal App2d 167, 257 P2d 716.
<br />14,07. Parol evidence to supplement record.
<br />municipal record is presumed to contain the fundamental attri-
<br />bute of verity, and without it the firs. and m ost imnnrtgnf. ii PfinItinn
<br />ed, added too, r supplemented by parol evidence. Parol evidence
<br />cannot be admitted either to explain, enlarge, or contradict a record
<br />of the proceeding of a municipal body where the entry of -record is
<br />made i pursuance ofla �r in good faith and is complete and una bi -
<br />o stn To permit this would reader• such records uncertain and u nre-
<br />liable and they would fail to afford any evidence that could be de-
<br />pended upon to show the true proceedings of the municipal body* at
<br />any of its meetings." However, a court can take into consideration
<br />the actual situation which existed in the municipality at the time of
<br />a council meeting, and the court must, interpret any resolution
<br />which was adopted at that meeting in the light ofthe situation
<br />revealed by the record." It has also been held that the acts of a
<br />legislature, which mai: appear to be valid on their face, may be
<br />impeached by the ,journal record," Furthermore, extrinsic evidence
<br />has been allowed to disprove the authenticity of a public record.'
<br />The general rule, that. parol evidence. is inadmissible to soppy,
<br />omissions or to contradict or explain records, applies to proceedings
<br />showing corporate actin of parishes, school districts, and all forms
<br />of public or municipal corporations, full and quasi.0 Among numer-
<br />ous applications of the rule have been its application to the enact-
<br />ment of ordinances and to failure to call and record the yeas and
<br />nays when required."' The fact of the taking of the yeas and nab*s can
<br />be shoN n only by the pre duction of the record; I I h Wever, the record
<br />may be amend
<br />under which ?
<br />of ordinance; 13
<br />subsequent alt
<br />the meaning of
<br />clerical error
<br />irrg the adjour,
<br />r Michigan. t(
<br />Mich 44.
<br />New Harrrpshir
<br />473.
<br />Presumptions ass
<br />generally, §14.03a
<br />United State
<br />Inv. Co. v. Florala.
<br />Alabama. Bente
<br />Inv. Co., 222 Ala 1
<br />Arkansas, Nra r -j
<br />400.
<br />California. He%
<br />App 248, 84 P I Ki_
<br />Connecticut. R
<br />Conn 327.
<br />Illinois. Pa tor:
<br />628, 66 NE 8,5.
<br />Indiana. Carro
<br />137 Ind 622, 37 NE
<br />Iowa. fusser N
<br />Iowa 101, 34 NNS'
<br />Kentucky. Hosk.
<br />260, 18 SW2d 105 9.
<br />III ICY 491, 63 S kV
<br />Maine. Blaisdeli
<br />Michigan. How-:
<br />Mich 347" 106 N"
<br />Mississippi. N11
<br />900} 27 So 602.
<br />Missouri. Ball
<br />New Jersey. C
<br />sack. 115 NJL 20_-.
<br />1225.
<br />New York. Hoy,
<br />Misc. 265, 257 N -Y
<br />text.
<br />North Carolina-
<br />31
<br />aro t►a.31 NC App 648, Z
<br />Ohio. Billington
<br />St2d 140, 267 NE
<br />Virginia. Henri,,
<br />
|