Hall v. Turner
Decision Date | 09 November 1926 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 16003,Case Number: 15809 |
Citation | 125 Okla. 248,1926 OK 883,257 P. 328 |
Parties | HALL et al. v. TURNER et al. and JUSTUS et al. v. TOWN OF SHIDLER. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 Municipal Corporations--Invalidity of Bond Election in Incorporated Town. Where an incorporated town, in accordance with law, is divided into three wards, and only one voting precinct is established for all the voters of the town, and all voters voting in a bond election, held in said town, cast their vote in the one precinct, which said precinct extends beyond ward lines in violation of section 6134, Compiled Oklahoma Statutes, 1921, and a sufficient number of votes are cast by electors, who reside outside of the ward in which the one precinct voting place is located to change the result of the election, such election is void.
Holcombe & Lohman, for plaintiffs in error.
J. L. Jackson, J. O. Koch, and George P. Glaze, for defendants in error.
¶1 By the first action, No. 15809, plaintiffs in error, as plaintiffs below, sought an injunction against the defendants in error, defendants below, to prevent them from executing, issuing, and selling water bonds of the city of Shidler, in the sum of $ 125,000. By the second action, No. 16003, the defendants in error, as plaintiffs, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the plaintiffs in error as defendants below, in their official capacity as the excise board of Osage county, to vacate their order, which struck from the estimate of the town of Shidler, for the year 1924, the items and amount required to create a sinking fund to retire said bonds; they sought to reinstate such items on such estimate and to levy an adequate tax to create a sinking fund for said purpose. In the first action a judgment was rendered dissolving a temporary injunction theretofore issued and denying a permanent injunction and allowing the judgment to be superseded; in the latter action the writ of mandamus was granted and supersedeas allowed. The actions, having been consolidated, will be considered together. The petition in the first action alleges that Shidler is an incorporated town and "is divided into three wards, numbered 1, 2, and 3, and each of said wards comprises a voting precinct; that no election was held in wards 2 and 3, but all the persons voting at said election voted at the city hall in ward 1, and more than 150 persons who voted at said precinct were not residents of said ward and were not entitled to vote there." It appears that 184 votes were cast in the election, 107 being for the bonds and 77 against them. The defendants below, by answer, admitted the town of Shidler to be incorporated. They admitted their official character, and otherwise denied generally. The plaintiffs proved the election was held only in one ward and that the town was divided into three wards. Plaintiffs did not prove that there had been created or designated voting precincts in wards 2 and 3, but to the contrary, a witness, Randall, county registrar of Osage county, testified for plaintiffs that he delivered registration books to the registrar at Shidler, a Mr. Morrison, thus indicating that there was but one registrar for the town, and consequently but one voting precinct therein, since under section 6251, Compiled Oklahoma Statutes, 1921, it is the duty of the county registrar to appoint a precinct registrar in each precinct in the county. We conclude then that the town of Shidler consisted of three wards; that at the time of the election there had been designated but one voting precinct therein. Was this condition fatal to the validity of the election held?
¶2 Section 6134, Compiled Oklahoma Statutes, 1921, is, in part, as follows:
" * * * All the territory included in a voting precinct shall be within a ward or township, while the territory of a voting precinct shall not extend beyond the boundary lines of a ward or municipal township, a ward or municipal township may contain as many precincts as the county board may deem necessary. * * * "
¶3 If this section applies, then the act of designating or extending a precinct so as include three wards is void. And, on the other hand the growth and incorporation of the town consisting of three wards within a theretofore existing precinct superseded the precinct as created in so far as the territory of the designated precinct extended beyond the limits of a ward. Under such circumstances, before a legal vote could be cast, at least in the extended territory, in a ward other than that where the voting place was, it would be necessary to have created voting precincts in the other wards. Section 6134, supra, contemplates such action, for it concludes with the provision: "If such board shall fail to act as herein directed, any qualified elector of the county may apply for a writ of mandamus to compel the performance of this duty." Section 6252, Compiled Oklahoma Statutes, 1921, requires each qualified voter to register in the election precinct of which he is a resident. Then if the law restricts a precinct to a ward, how can it be said that citizens residing within separate and distinct wards are legally registered and entitled to vote within the same precinct?
¶4 In Goree et al. v. Cahill et al., 35 Okla. 42, 128 P. 124 it is held that:
"The requirements of the law relative to the place of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nipper v. Excise Bd. of Osage Cnty.
...void for the reason that the city was divided into three voting precincts and the election was held in only one precinct. Hall v. Turner, 125 Okla. 248, 257 P. 328. This court directed the trial court to enter an order enjoining the city officials from selling or disposing of the bonds. ¶7 ......
-
Toohey v. Town of Canton
...election the town of Canton was indebted in excess of the constitutional limitation. ¶3 Plaintiffs rely upon the cases of Hall v. Turner, 125 Okla. 248, 257 P. 328; Munger v. Town of Watonga, 106 Okla. 78, 233 P. 211; and Goree v. Cahill, 35 Okla. 42, 128 P. 124. At the time these decisions......
-
Livesay v. Town of Webb City
...for the proposition of 38 votes. ¶8 Plaintiffs cite the cases of Munger v. Town of Watonga, 106 Okla. 78, 233 P. 211, and Hall v. Turner, 125 Okla. 248, 257 P. 328. We fully concur in the rule laid down in these cases. In the syllabus of the latter case it is said:"Where an incorporated tow......
-
Flood v. Town of Shidler
...to in the answer of the defendant in the trial court, has been finally disposed of by this court on appeal. See Hall et al. v. Turner et al., No. 15809, 125 Okla. 248, 257 P. 328. ¶18 In that opinion we reach the conclusion that the election of January 15, 1924, authorizing the issuance by ......