State ex rel. Mercer County v. Gordon
Decision Date | 20 May 1912 |
Citation | 147 S.W. 795,242 Mo. 615 |
Parties | THE STATE ex rel. MERCER COUNTY, C. E. MINTER, JAMES T. ALLEY and WILLIAM HORN v. JOHN P. GORDON, State Auditor |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Writ allowed.
Ira B Hyde & Son and E. M. Harber for relators.
(1) The notice is sufficient according to the special statute, sec 1261, which governs that question. It is evident that each and every requirement of said statute was fully met to the letter, and it certainly must be conceded that said statute does not require the polling places to be designated in said notice. Such being the case, notice was valid, and it matters not whether said statute is construed as mandatory or simply directory, for the reason that it was fully complied with. (2) However, it is urged by respondent that section 1263 providing that the election shall be held and conducted in the same manner as in elections for State and county officers; that certain sections of such general election law namely, sections 5804 and 11676, provide that each township may be divided into as many election precincts by the county court as said court may think the convenience of the electors requires; that said statutes contemplate the designation of the election precincts or polling places in said notice. While it is difficult to see that these statutes have any other application than merely prescribing how the election shall be conducted on the day of election, yet, if, considered on the question of notice, they are complied with, for the notice did state that the election would be held in Mercer county, whose voting precincts or balloting places had been established for more than twenty years. State ex rel. v. Bassett, 133 Mo.App. 366. The statute prescribing the contents of the notice does not require the place to be stated, but does require the day on which the election is to be held. (3) Section 1261 covers the entire question of notice in this class of elections and is exclusive, the rule being that where a statute in relation to special proceedings is complete in itself and covers the entire subject, it is exclusive, and the proceedings under it are governed solely by its provisions. The notice here given in every respect complied with requirements of sec. 1261. Ackerman v. Green, 201 Mo. 244; Baker v. Railroad, 36 Mo. 543; Carter v. Tindall, 28 Mo.App. 319; Schwoerer v. Christophel, 64 Mo.App. 81; State ex rel. v. City, 35 Utah 25; State ex rel. v. County, 114 P. 522. (4) It is a general rule that when the voters have had an opportunity to express and have fairly expressed their will, an election should not be held invalid for mere irregularities which in no way affect the result. Sanders v. Lacks, 142 Mo. 255; State ex rel. v. Roberts, 153 Mo. 112; State ex rel. v. Swanger, 212 Mo. 472; State v. Swearingen, 128 Mo.App. 613; Bowers v. Smith, 111 Mo. 61.
Elliott W. Major, Attorney-General, and Charles G. Revelle, Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.
This being a special election, called for the purpose of incurring an indebtedness in excess of the total income and revenue of such county provided for any one year, all the requirements of the statutes pertaining to the holding of such election must be strictly complied with. St. Louis v. Epperson, 97 Mo. 300; Post v. County, 47 F. 282; County v. Marcy, 97 U.S. 96; Thomasville v. Light Co., 122 Ga. 399; Williams v. People, 132 Ill. 574; Railroad v. Bearss, 39 Ind. 598; Clarksdale v. Broaddus, 77 Miss. 667; Hauswirth v. Mueller, 25 Mont. 156; State v. Babcock, 25 Neb. 500; Martin v. Bennett, 139 Mo.App. 237; Davis v. County, 116 Ga. 491. (2) The statute prescribed the contents of the notice of election. That notice shall state the place where the election will be held. The purpose of this provision is to impart information to the electors, so that they may know where to deposit their ballots and thus express their wishes concerning the question whether a tax shall be imposed on their property. Whatever may be the rule with respect to the election of public officers, we are satisfied that where the statute prescribes that the notice of an election for the purpose of burdening property with a tax shall specify the place at which voters may vote, the provisions are mandatory, and must be substantially complied with. No requirement of the election law is more important to be observed than that where the election is to be held. Hilburn v. Railroad, 23 Mont. 247; Johnstone v. Robertson, 8 Ariz. 361; People v. Gohcenour, 54 Ill. 123; Stephens v. People, 89 Ill. 337; Hendersonville v. Jordan, 63 S. E. (N. C.) 167; Barry v. Lauck, 5 Coldw. (Tenn.) 588; Knowles v. Yates, 31 Cal. 92; Melvin's Case, 68 Pa. St. 338. (3) The notice of election purporting to inform the voters of Mercer county of the matters to be voted upon was not such a notice as is contemplated by sec. 1261, and incorporating the order of the court without notifying the voters that an election would be held in the manner prescribed by such order, did not remedy the defect; and said order, thus incorporated, in said purported notice, failed to designate the election precincts and the polling places therein. Gaston v. Lampkin, 115 Mo. 20; St. Louis v. Epperson, 97 Mo. 300.
OPINION
In Banc
Mandamus. Original Proceeding.
Original action by mandamus in this court to compel respondent, as State Auditor, to register county bonds.
On the 3d day of October, 1911, a special election was held in Mercer county, Missouri, submitting to the qualified voters of that county a proposition to authorize the issue of $ 75,000 county bonds to raise money to build a courthouse.
At said election, 1474 votes were cast for and 369 votes against the issue of said bonds. More than two-thirds of the qualified votes cast in said election being in favor of said issue, the county court declared the proposition carried, issued the bonds authorized and attempted to have the same registered and certified by respondent as Auditor of the State of Missouri. Respondent having refused to register and certify said bonds, this action was instituted on April 22, 1912, to compel him to do so.
Respondent has filed his return to the alternative writ issued herein defending his action in refusing to register and certify said bonds, on the following grounds:
1. That the notice of election to authorize the issue of said bonds as published, was in fact no notice at all, because it was only a copy of the order made by the county court requiring notice to be given.
2. That the notice of said special election to issue bonds failed to comply with sections 1261 and 1263, Revised Statutes 1909, in that it failed to designate the polling places in Mercer county where said special election was to be held.
Respondent also attacks the notice of election on other grounds which he does not urge in his brief, and which we do not find worthy of special mention in this opinion.
The relators move the court for a judgment in their favor upon the pleadings.
The notice of the special election to authorize the issue of bonds is in fact only a certified copy of the order made by the county court of Mercer county ordering a special election to be held, and is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. City of Berkeley v. Holmes
... ... Mullen v. Doherty, 16 Wash. 382, 47 P. 958; McDonald ... v. Cochise County, 292 P. 603; Seymour v. City of ... Tacoma, 33 P. 1059; Weisgerber v. Nez Perce ... County, 197 ... and until registered by the State Auditor. Sec. 3306, R.S ... 1939; State ex rel. v. Gordon, 268 Mo. 321, 188 S.W ... 88. (3) Substantial or approximate compliance with a statute ... reasonably be held to be substantial compliance. [State ... ex rel. Mercer County v. Gordon, 242 Mo. 615, 147 S.W ... 795; State ex rel. City of Memphis v. Hackman, 273 ... ...
-
State ex rel. City of Memphis v. Hackman
... ... Sec. 9545, ... R. S. 1909; State ex rel. v. Gordon, 217 Mo. 117; ... Catron v. Lafayette Co., 106 Mo. 669; Bauch v ... Cabool, 165 Mo.App ... Sanders v. Lacks, 142 Mo. 255; ... Whipley v. McCune, 12 Cal. 357; State v. County ... Com., 22 Fla. 34; State v. Alachua Co., 17 Fla ... 16; People v. Willard, 29 Ill. 423; ... Walbridge, 119 ... Mo. 383, 24 S.W. 457.] ... In ... State ex rel. Mercer County v. Gordon, 242 Mo. 615, 147 ... S.W. 795, we had occasion to make a concrete application ... ...
-
State Ex Inf. Thompson v. Bright
... ... 335 THE STATE ex inf. DAVID A. THOMPSON, Prosecuting Attorney, ex rel. THOMAS PUGH et al. Appellants, v. ARCH BRIGHT et al Supreme Court of ... (3) There was no proper certificate of the ... meeting to the county super-intendent of the respective ... counties or to the county clerk of ... Breuninger v. Hill, 277 Mo. 239, 252; ... State ex rel. v. Gordon, 242 Mo. 624; State ex ... rel. v. Hackman, 273 Mo. 670, 700; Ex parte ... ...
-
State ex rel. Marlowe v. Himmelberger-Harrison Lumber Co.
... 58 S.W.2d 750 332 Mo. 379 State ex rel. L. D. Marlowe, Collector of Revenue for New Madrid County, v. Himmelberger-Harrison Lumber Company et al., Appellants No. 30517 Supreme Court of ... school building." ... We ... approve what is said in State ex rel. v. Gordon, 242 ... Mo. 615, 624, 147 S.W. 795, to-wit: "It is rare indeed ... that anyone desiring to cast ... ...