|
MUNICIPAL RECORDS
<br />§ I4.07
<br />may be amended to show the yeas and nays. 12 Other circumstances
<br />under which parol has been allowed are: to shover mayoral approval
<br />of ordinance; 13 to show contents of ordinance at time of passage and
<br />subsequent alteration; 14 to show actual vote on measure;"' to show
<br />the meaning of'an ambiguity contained in the record; I to show that
<br />a clerical error haat been made;' I and to show circumstances attend-
<br />ing
<br />t a d-
<br />ing the adjournment of a meeting.'s
<br />` MIC1119an. Ntevenson v_ Bay City, 2
<br />-Mich 44.
<br />New Hampshire. Bell v. Pike, 63 NH
<br />473.
<br />Presumptions as to municipal records
<br />generally, 14.3x.
<br />2 United States. Brow-Crumrner
<br />Alabama. Benton v. Bro n- rum er
<br />Irv. Co., 222 Alar 155, 13 So 1.
<br />Arkansas. Vance v. Austell, 45 Ark
<br />400.
<br />California. Hewell v. Hogan, 3 Cal
<br />App 243, 84 P 1002.
<br />Connecticut.. Bartlett %,. Kinsley, 1
<br />Conn 327.
<br />Illinois. Paxton v. Bogardus, 201 Ill
<br />623, 66 NE 853.
<br />Indiana. Carroi County v. O'Connor,
<br />137 Ind 622, 37 IAB 16_
<br />Iowa. Mussel v. Tama County, 73
<br />Iowa 101, 34 NW 762.
<br />Kentucky. oskins v. Pitman, 229 Ky
<br />260, 16 W?,d 1052; Barfield v. Gleason,
<br />111 Ky 491,63SW' 964.
<br />Maine. Blaisdell v. Briggs, 23 hie 123,
<br />Michigan. Howland v. Prentice, 143
<br />Mich 3471. 106 LYNN` 1105.
<br />l issi-s ippi. Mullins v. Shaw. 77 hl iss
<br />9. 27 So 602,
<br />Misssouri. Bail v. Fagg. 67 Nio 461.
<br />New Jersey. Crnpbre-ll v_ 11acken-
<br />saclL 115 :CJI, 209. 176 A 794, 93 A1,B
<br />12"25.
<br />New Fork. Howard v. Brighton, 143
<br />ML; -,c 265, 257 NYS 41, citing McQuillin
<br />text -
<br />North Carolina. George v. Edenton,
<br />31 NC App 648, 230 SEZd 695.
<br />Ohio. Billington v- Cotner, 25 Ohio
<br />t2d 140, 267 N 2d 410.
<br />Virginia. Henrico County, Windsor
<br />Farms v. Richmond, 177 Va 754,15 SE2d
<br />309; Head -Lipscomb -McCormick v. Bris-
<br />tol, 127 Va 669, 105 SE 500, cit*ag Me -
<br />Q illin text.
<br />Wisconsin. Chippewa Bridge Co. Y.
<br />Durand, 122 Wis 163, 99 IOW 603.
<br />'3 Illinois. People v. Beu, 403 Ill 232,
<br />35 NE2d 829, Bellwood -fir. Galt, 321 Ill
<br />6041152 ISE 591; Waukegan v. Drobnick,
<br />1 Ill App2d 88, 209 NE2d 24.
<br />Indiana. Aurora v. Fox, 73 Ind 1.
<br />Kentucky. Lewis v. Board of Educa-
<br />tion
<br />u a -
<br />tion of Johnson County (K'), 348 SW2d
<br />921; Frankfort v. Brammell, 220 Ky 132,
<br />294 SW 076; Dunn v. Cadiz, 140 Ky 217,
<br />130 SW 1089, hooting M Quillin text;
<br />Middlesboro v. Welch y App), 275
<br />W2d 56 (chril service lists).
<br />Massachusetts. Taylor v. Henry, 2
<br />Pick 397 (involving adjournment); School
<br />Dist. v. Atherton, 12 M tc 105 (vote at
<br />corporate meeting).
<br />Michigan. Moser v. White, 29 Mich
<br />59 (council meeting proceedings).
<br />New amps ire. Sawyer v. Man-
<br />chester & K. R., 62 NH 135 (Rote at corpo-
<br />rate meeting).
<br />New Jersey. Marini v. Holster, 7 NJ
<br />Super 329, 209 A2d 349.
<br />New Fork. Lord v. McCauley, 256
<br />App Div 390, 9 NYS2d 12; Howard v.
<br />Brighton, 143 Mise 265, 257 NYS 41, cit-
<br />rng McQuillin text .
<br />Vermont. Cameron v. Forth Herr, 4
<br />vt 507 (legal effect of vote); Sherwin v.
<br />Bugbee, 17 Vt 337 (notice of corporate
<br />meeting).
<br />Virginia. Henrico County Windsor
<br />Farms v. Richmond, 177 Ufa 754,15 SE2d
<br />309.
<br />4 Kentucky. Spaulding v. Lebanon,
<br />- 7.
<br />
|