|
a
<br />$nt of
<br />'
<br />) b,�ec-
<br />' ere
<br />red
<br />the
<br />-inti;
<br />Iowa
<br />eve
<br />-444.
<br />345,
<br />129
<br />.e, 41
<br />402.
<br />Ore
<br />25 P
<br />rural
<br />;en_
<br />:_
<br />'.a n
<br />e
<br />j1d
<br />sect
<br />pile
<br />Ise
<br />y
<br />let'
<br />A
<br />d
<br />rt-
<br />MUNICIAAL RECORDS § 14,03
<br />has been said not to invalidate there. They need not be signed at all
<br />unless required by law.
<br />$
<br />The record the enactment f ars ordinance need not shove the
<br />ordinance at length." Neither, i has been declared n
<br />show i f . � need record
<br />disco res and offhand conversation -8.11 1 It is a rea-
<br />sonable rue that courts will not req_E=ft
<br />the same exactness n kee
<br />ing the records of a town s in the case of
<br />court records." So, i
<br />keeping records of ccoiis of small cities and tens the same exact-
<br />ness is not required as In the more important urban centers, because
<br />usually such records are kept by inexperienced persens.1
<br />1 Alabama. Culpepper v. Phenix 0ty,
<br />216 Ala 318, 113 So 6; Bell v. Jonesboro,
<br />3 Ala App 652, 57 So 138.
<br />Illinois. Chicago v. 11 cCluer, 339 111
<br />610,171 NB 737; People v. Starve, 35 111
<br />121.
<br />Iowa. State v. Livermore, 192 Iowa
<br />620 185 NW 1; Jones Y. Sheldon,1 2 Iowa
<br />4062 154 NW 592.
<br />Kentucky. Meacham Contracting Co.
<br />v. l leiderer, 146 Icy 441, 142 SW 720.
<br />MOLssachusetts. Commonwealth v.
<br />Davis, 140 Mass 485, 4 NE 577.
<br />l' ississi pi. Corinth v. Sharp, 107
<br />Miss 696, 165 So 888.
<br />Nebraska. Shambau h v. Buffalo
<br />County, 133 Neb 46, 274 NW 207.
<br />Neter Jersey, State v. Union, 32 NJL
<br />343; Appeals of Jersey City (1945 Tax As-
<br />sessments) (Div of Tax App), 49 A2d 26
<br />(all facts necessary to exercise of statuto-
<br />ry authority).
<br />Pennsylvania. Logan v. 7�*Ier,1 Pitts
<br />244,
<br />Wisconsin. Schwartz v. Oshkosh, 5
<br />is 490, 13 MV 4.50.
<br />M s oufrl. Rockvffle v. Merchant. 60
<br />Mo App 365, 371.
<br />Bill -reacting requirements generally-.
<br />13.46.
<br />Presumption as to bill -reading require-
<br />ments, §14.03a.
<br />3 Metro Cable Co. v. CATV of Rock-
<br />ford, Inc., 516 F2d 220 Illinois law).
<br />4 Georgia. Scott v- Mayor & Council
<br />f Mount Airy, 64 Ga App 828,14 S 2d
<br />127 (tax lei -R).
<br />Iloi. People v. Illinois Cert. I. Co.,
<br />374 111 92, 28 NE2d 106 (tax l evy).
<br />Kentucky, Bates v. Jenkins (I y), 322
<br />SW2d 475; Herd v. Collins, 304 Ky 379,
<br />200 SW2d 933; Louisville N,. Mc egney,
<br />70 Kir (7 Bush) 651.
<br />Missouri, Brunswick v. Scott, 219 Mo
<br />App 453 275 SW 994 (absence of record).
<br />Montana. O'Brien v. Drinkenberg, 41
<br />Mont 538,111 P 137 (iasuf dent record).
<br />'5 Georgia. Cart r Ue v. McGinnis,
<br />142 Ga 71, 81 SE 487.
<br />Illinois, Schofield v. Hudson, 56 Il l
<br />App 191 (vote).
<br />Indiana, State v. May, 190 Ind €119,
<br />131 ISE 382.
<br />Kentucky. Orr v. Mann, 208 Ky 46,
<br />270 SW 491; Harrison v. Greenville, 146
<br />K y 96,142 SW 213; Martin v. Greenville,
<br />145 K , 0492 140 SNV 1€ 43.
<br />New Hampshire. Pierce v. Richard.
<br />son, 37 NH 306 (appointment of officers).
<br />Oregon. frelan v. Portland, 91 Care
<br />471, 179 P 286.
<br />'5 United States, First Trust Co. of'St,
<br />Paul v. Board of Education of Whitley
<br />County, 78 F2d 114 lt,ypewrjtten sheet
<br />attached to record book %%Ith paper clips).
<br />Arkansas. Malvern %,. Cooper, 108
<br />Ark 261,156 SW945 (erroneot recital of
<br />date of pas% e).
<br />Colorado. Brophy v. Hyatt, 10 Cato
<br />223, 15 P 399 (interlineation of record).
<br />10wa. Jones v. Sheldon, 172 Iowa 406,
<br />154 NW 592 (Failure to spread resolu.
<br />tions on pages of book); Collins v. Iowa
<br />CikyR 146 Iowa 305, 125 NrW 226.
<br />Ientucky. Huddleston v. Ashland,
<br />4
<br />
|