|
I
<br />7 MUNICIPAL RECpRDS § 14.03a
<br />record shows that an ordinance was signed by the mayor and
<br />ed b the clerk, it will bresp attest-
<br />ed that the signature was rightfully
<br />made, and the minutes need not affirmatively show the'
<br />presence at the meeting at which the ordinancemayor
<br />was pased.10 And
<br />where the ordinance was duly signed by the mayor it viii
<br />rued that it �a l� e �
<br />•
<br />legally enacted and presented to him for ap-
<br />proval.
<br />On the other hallo, it has been declared that in the silence
<br />record no rrr� t�or� of the
<br />p obtains that proceedings other than those
<br />mentioned in the record took place. Accordingly, where the stats
<br />in a rens terns re trires a recordto
<br />r o presume tion arises a to the
<br />rega arit of the rocee s riot a 4
<br />g pp ari on tie record. So,
<br />w I ere e charter re q n i respar ecu r corpora e to eerforme
<br />by a specified vote the record �
<br />rd of the proceedings must' shove► affirma-
<br />tively that the measure received the vote prescribed."'
<br />this will not. hepresumed.� � p Ordinarily
<br />A record merely stating that the mea-
<br />sure was adopted is insufficient to raise such a presumption.1 Fur-
<br />thermore, o presumption that a ordinancewas
<br />passed arises from
<br />the recital ofthe fact in the record that it was reported, p ,nor from the
<br />farther Fact that contracts were made and work performed under
<br />such ordinance. 1 7
<br />By statute, the presumptions that official duty has been regularly
<br />arty
<br />performed, that the ordinary course of business has been f
<br />and that. the a��� has obeyed,
<br />been obeyed, may be made disputaie.19
<br />'Alabama. Jones NF. McAlpine, 6
<br />Ala 611 (incomplete record).
<br />Arkansas. Adams v. Sims, 238 Ark
<br />696, 385 SW2d 13, citing McQ illin text;
<br />Bit rrus v. Board of Seiner Improvement,
<br />134 Ark 10, 203 Sid' 20 (record containing
<br />erasures and corrections).
<br />Colorado. Greeley v. Hamman, 17
<br />C010 30, 28 B 460.
<br />Idaho. BOiSe Citi* v. Better orne,,t
<br />Inc., 72 Idaho 441, 243 Ptd 303, citing
<br />McQuillin t,ert-
<br />111inoM Bromberg v. Kulp, 398 [H
<br />44 9, 76 NEM 45.
<br />to iL Eldora v. Burf in ar e, 62 Iowa
<br />32,17 N ' 145; State v. Vail, 53 Iowa 550,
<br />NW 7099; Brewster v. Davenport, 51
<br />Iowa 427, 1 NW 737.
<br />Kazis". Iia% ing v. Miltonville,
<br />.36
<br />Kan 740, 14 P 281.
<br />Kentucky. Planters Bank &FTrust Co.
<br />of Hopkinsville v. Hopkinsville, 289 ky
<br />451, 159 SW2d 25; Baker v. Goings, 194
<br />y 260, 9 SW , Lexington i'. Head-
<br />ley, 68 Ky (5 Bush) 503.
<br />Ma-ssachusetts, Coleman v. LoDuison,
<br />296 Mass 210. 5 NE2d 46.
<br />Minnesota. Duluth v. Krupp, 4
<br />Mian 435. 49 NW 235; State v. M iftnea
<br />oli & St_ L, Ry. Go., 39 Minn 219,13 I've'
<br />153.
<br />Mississippi. Biloxi v_ Cawley (MLssi,
<br />278 Sold 389,
<br />M ouni. Rutherford v. Hamilton, 9i
<br />Mo 543, 11 SW 249.
<br />Nebraska. Hull v. Humboldt, 107
<br />Neb 326, 186 NW 78.
<br />New Hampshire. Scam on v. Scam.
<br />Now, 28 NIH 419 (record that officer "took
<br />the oath of office" irnpOr<ting oath pre-
<br />scribed by law).
<br />New Jeney. Durant v. Jersey City,
<br />
|