Sargent v. City of Santa F?

• Decision Date: 17 July 1918
• Docket Number: No. 2273.,2273.
• Citation: 174 P. 424,24 N.M. 411
• Parties: SARGENTv.CITY OF SANTA FÉ et al.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

24 N.M. 411

174 P. 424

SARGENT

v.CITY OF SANTA FÉ et al.

No. 2273.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

July 17, 1918.

Syllabus by the Court.

The receiving by election officers of illegal or improper votes will not alone vitiate an election. It must be shown affirmatively in order to overturn the declared result that the wrongful action changed it.

Appeal from District Court, Santa Fé County; Holloman, Judge.

Suit for injunction by W. G. Sargent, for himself and others similarly situated, against the City of Santa Fé and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Election officers' receipt of illegal or improper votes will not alone vitiate city bond election, but to overturn the declared result it must be affirmatively shown that the wrongful action changed it.

E. P. Davies, of Santa Fé, for appellant.

J. J. Kenney, of Santa Fé, for appellees.

ROBERTS, J.

This suit was instituted in the court below by appellant, a taxpayer within the city of Santa Fé, N. M., for the purpose of enjoining the city of Santa Fé and its officers from issuing and selling “City Hall Bonds of 1918” to the amount of $10,000. The question of the issuance of the bonds was submitted to a vote of the electors of such city at the regular election for aldermen and mayor on the 4th day of April, 1918, and was approved by a very large majority, as shown by the return of the election officials.

Only one point is made against the validity of the bonds in the complaint. It is conceded, and in fact the record shows, that all the steps for the issuance of the bonds were regular and according to law, with the single exception that nontaxpaying electors were permitted by the election officials to vote upon the proposition. The Constitution, § 12, art. 9, limiting the debt-contracting power of municipalities, provides:

“No such debt shall be created unless the question of incurring the same shall, at a regular election for councilmen, aldermen or other officers of such city, town or village, have been submitted to a vote of such qualified electors thereof as have paid a property tax therein during the preceding year, and a majority of those voting on the question, by ballot deposited in a separate ballot box, shall have voted in favor of creating such debt.”

The trial court found that nontaxpaying electors had been permitted to vote, and that such votes so cast had been counted and canvassed by the election officials, but it further found that, notwithstanding the fact that such...