Laserfiche WebLink
MUNICIPAL RECORDS <br />I4'1isouri, In re St. LOUis v_ Foster, 52 <br />Mo 513. <br />New Fork. In re Carlton Street, 16 <br />Hun 497. <br />Faking of yeas and nays generally, <br />§14.04. <br />s See §14.10. <br />.13 Missouri. Knight v. Kansas City, <br />St. J. & C. B. R. Cao., 70 Mo 231 (to show <br />mayor approved ordinance). <br />California. L yer v. Brogan, dal <br />136, 11 R 539. <br />"a 10wa. State v. Alexander, 107 Iowa <br />177, 77 NW 841. _ <br />Massachusetts. Mayo v. Inhabitants <br />§ 14,08 <br />of Town of West. Springfield, 260 Mass <br />594x 157 NE 700. <br />"Missouri. Snip v. Lfa ar, 239 Mo <br />App 824, 201 SW2d 790 (contract). <br />South Carolina. Mason v. Williams, <br />194 SC 290, 9 S td 537 (resolution). <br />Tennessee. Brumley v. Town of <br />reeneVill , 38 Tenn App 322, 274 SW2 <br />1 (ordinances not read on page). <br />Virginia, Egerton ". Hopewell, 193 <br />a 493, 09 SE2d 326. <br />17 Texas. Houston E. & W. T. lRy. C.4). <br />v. Cavanaugh (Tex CIN, App), 173 SW 619. <br />" Maine. Charnbflain Y. Dover, 13 <br />Me 460. <br />14.08# —omissions, <br />rnission to make a record of municipal Proceedings, <br />or to beep <br />such a record, does not per se invalidate municipal al action' <br />�. rs <br />otherwise valid.' Ordinarily the validity an ordinance din <br />rice or resolu- <br />tion is that, through an oversight not. affected b the fact. f <br />is not copied o clerk <br />� <br />upon .h r unicipal records.2 While the decisions <br />present some apparent conflict respecting collateral public r ai� impeachment <br />of records ' � � <br />public corporations which are required <br />y express law to be kepi- in writing, they are reasonably y u ' <br />rfrm in <br />admitting parol evidence to establish the real facts of <br />transactions <br />or corporate acts, in the entire absence of all record," or where the <br />record kept is so meager that the particular transaction <br />is not disclosed it." transaction, act, r vote <br />The unrecorded acts f the council, if clean <br />proved, are valid." This principle has <br />p been adopted in order to pre- <br />serve the rights of creditors of the corporation or third <br />have performed or perms who <br />or services r expended money for the benefit <br />of the corporation, relying in good faith uPon the regularity ula�-rt� and <br />legality of the proceedirigs.15 It has also been fed m other �r�rt <br />o • <br />stances.' <br />Where the charter or statute applicable declares in express <br />that a record hail kept ars p e-� terms <br />d shall be the only evidence of rp - <br />rate acts, the rule of strict construction would excludearol <br />er�ce;I bt ire the absence of such - p e�� <br />provision, courts are more liberal <br />in admitting oral testimony for the purposes within <br />the limitations <br />