|
23
<br />MUNICI 'AL RECORDS
<br />1 Connecticut. Boston Turnpike Co.
<br />v. Pomfret., 20 Conn 590.
<br />Missouri. State v. Walter, 324 Mo
<br />290, 23 SW2d 167.
<br />Missouri. Webb v. Strobac , 143 Mo
<br />App 459,127 SW 680.
<br />New Hampshire. Lomat v. Pettengill,
<br />12 NH 337.
<br />Amendment if there i 'atter autho-
<br />rizing ing it, §14.10. At
<br />3 Alabama. Jeffers v. Wharton, 2
<br />Ala App 428,197 So 352, cert granted 240
<br />Ala 21, 197 So 358 (amendments to be
<br />based on written data or matter of
<br />record).
<br />Vermont. Mott N►. Reynolds, 27 Vt
<br />206.
<br />4 California, Childress s v. Peterson, 18
<br />ald .036, 117 P2d 336,
<br />5 Florida. Ogletree v. Winter Carden
<br />(Fla App), 128 So2d 437 (permissible t
<br />supplement by patrol but notcontradict).
<br />§ 14,12
<br />Vermont. Mott v. Reynolds, 27 Vt
<br />2061 208.
<br />Massachusetts. Manning V.
<br />Gloucester, 6 Pick 6; Taylor v. Henry, 2 ;
<br />Pick 337; Stoughton viF. Atherton, 12 Mete
<br />105.
<br />7 Illinois, Gilberts %,-. Rabe, 49 111 App
<br />418, 421.
<br />a Connecticut. Boston Turnpike Co.
<br />v. Pomfret, 20 Conn 590.
<br />Missouri. Steiger v. Ste. Genevieve,
<br />235 Mo App 579, 141 SW2d 233, citing
<br />cQuillin text (amendment of record
<br />subsequent to institution of lit'igat'ion).
<br />Nem, Hampshire. Pierce v. Richard-
<br />son, 37 ISH 06; Low v. P tte gill, 12 NH
<br />337; Gibson v. Bailey, 9 NH 168.
<br />10 Kentucky. Janutola & Cho adori
<br />Const. Co. v. Taulbee, 229 Ky 213, 16
<br />SW2d 1026.
<br />1' yew Hampshire, Low v. Pette -
<br />gill, 12 NH 337.
<br />14.12. Court order to compel.
<br />Amendments of municipal records may be compelled on order of
<br />court,' and mandamus will lie for this purpose.' Mandamus to com-
<br />pel the council clerk to correct a council record has been denied,
<br />however, where the council, as was its prerogative, had already
<br />made the correction, and there was no duty enjoined upon the clerk
<br />to do S0.3 And mandamus did not issue to correct council minutes to
<br />show a so-called contract which was too vague and uncertain in its
<br />terms to be susceptible of validation. Furthermore, an order to
<br />expunge from a board's minutes the record of a void action taken by
<br />it has been refused," and mandamus '"Pas denied to compel s com-
<br />plete obliteration and remaking of a record, although a correction
<br />could be ordered."
<br />t Indiana. Board ofkCounty Com'rs of
<br />N1 . rxon County v_ Powell, 2121nd 557, 10
<br />E 2d 2
<br />Kentucky. Frankfort Kentucky Nat.
<br />Gas Co. v. Frankfort, 276 Ky 199.
<br />123 N'2d 270.
<br />Missouri. Frago v. Irondale, 364 Mo
<br />5W. 963 SW2d 356 -
<br />New Hampshire. Bishop v. Cone,
<br />NH 5t.
<br />New York. Stanley v. Board of Ap-
<br />peals of Village of Pierpo t, 168 hfisc
<br />797, 5 NYS2d 9,%-
<br />2 Alabama. GuntersNille v. Walls,
<br />252 Ala 66, 39 Sold 567, citing McQui fin
<br />text; Penton v. Brown-Crummer Inv. Co.,
<br />222 Ala 165, 131 So 14, citing M cQuiIIin
<br />text.
<br />Connecticut. Farrell v. King, 41
<br />Conn 448; Samis v. King, 40 Conn 298.
<br />Missouri. State v. Sappington (Mo
<br />App), 261 SW2d W.
<br />New Jersey. Campbell v. Ha ken-
<br />lim
<br />
|