|
It : '
<br />9 MUNICIPAL REcoRris § 14,04
<br />" united States. Monett Elec. Light, New Hampshire. Scam on v. Scam -
<br />Power & Ice Co. Y. Monett, 186 F 360. mon, 28 NH 419; Pierce v. Richardson, 37
<br />12 Colorado, Tracey v. People, 6 Colo NH 306.
<br />151.
<br />Illinois. People v- Chicago & N. W. Ry.
<br />Go., 396 111 466, 71 NE2d 701; Ryan v.
<br />Lynch, 68 111 160.
<br />13 Idaho. Gorman v. Boise County
<br />Corn'rs, 1 Idaho 553.
<br />14 111 m of . Chicago Eknk Go. v. arrl-
<br />V, 115 111 155, 3 NE 448* Rich v. Chicago,
<br />59111286.
<br />Indiana, Brookbank v. Jeffersonville,
<br />411 d 406; Moberry v. Jeffersonville, 38
<br />Ind 193; Logansport v. Legg, 20 Ind 315.
<br />Maine. See Hathaway way v. Addison, 48
<br />Me 446_
<br />Michigan. Tennant v. Crocker, '85
<br />Mich 32.8, 48 NW 577; Whitney v. Hud-
<br />son, 69 Mich 189, 37 NW 184.
<br />New York. People v. Yerman, 138
<br />Mise 272, 246 NYS 665.
<br />15 Illinois; Spangler v. Jacoby, 14 111
<br />297.
<br />Indiana. State v. Curry, 134 Ind 133,
<br />33 ISE 585.
<br />New York, 1n re Carlton Street, 1
<br />Hun 497, 78 NY 362.
<br />16 New York. In re Boulevard,
<br />Queens Borough, New York, 185 App Div
<br />315, 173 NYS 23.
<br />"Kentucky. C:ovin to v. Ludlow, 1
<br />Mete 295; cf Lexington v. Hadley,
<br />Push 508.
<br />10 California. Carruth v. Madera, 233
<br />Cal App2d 688, 43 Cal Rptr 855.
<br />14.04. Taking yeas and nays.
<br />In the absence of a legal requirement or rule requiring yeas and
<br />nays of a municipal council to be recorded, no record of the vote need
<br />be taken.' But as we have al re seen if the lave req wires the yeas
<br />and nq3rs to lie recorded as well stale the record is insufficient
<br />they are' not entered therein.3 In the taping of yeas r nags, a
<br />re or tMc recites si l y the vote of each member on the proposi-
<br />tion
<br />ro osi-
<br />ti n is sufficient.' Held in uffici was a record which recited that
<br />all members of the council were present but d% record the names
<br />of those who voted for or against- the ordinance involved and did not
<br />state whether the vote was unanimous,"
<br />Some decisions have held that. where the minutes sbowd who was
<br />present and recited a unanimous vote there was a compliance with
<br />the tatnte;6 other decisions have reached the OPPOsite conclusion,"
<br />1 A,r &nsas . Holman v. Dierks, 217
<br />Ark _ 233 S W2 392
<br />Georgia. Ha itton v. North Georgia
<br />l ._ Membership Corp.. 201 Ge 689, 40
<br />S2d 7&5
<br />Iowa. Sawyer Y_ Loorenzen & Weise,
<br />149 Iowa 87, 127 W 1091; Preston v.
<br />Cedar Rapids, 95 Iowa 171. 63 N%V 577.
<br />Presumption as to whetheir required
<br />vote was obtained, 1 4.3a.
<br />1
<br />S ,§ 13.44, 13.5.
<br />United States. Monett Elec. Light,
<br />Pourer & Ice Co. ;R_ Monett, 186 P 360,
<br />following Steckert v. East Saginaw, 22
<br />Mich 104_
<br />Arkansa. Natural Gas & Fuel Corp.
<br />v. l orphleta`� & Fater Co.. 173 Ark
<br />174, 294 SlAy 52.
<br />Winois. People Y. Chicago & K W. Ry.
<br />Go., 396 111 502, 71 1` E d 701.
<br />Iowa. Farmer's Tel. Co. v. Wa hta,
<br />157 Iowa 447, 143 NT%V 361.
<br />Loulslana. Town of De Ridder v.
<br />Head, 139 La 843, 72 So 374.
<br />NO
<br />
|