Wright v. City of McMinnville

• Decision Date: 01 August 1911
• Citation: 117 P. 298,59 Or. 397
• Parties: WRIGHT v. CITY OF McMINNVILLE et al.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

117 P. 298

59 Or. 397

WRIGHT v. CITY OF McMINNVILLE et al.

Supreme Court of Oregon

August 1, 1911

Appeal from Circuit Court, Yamhill County; William Galloway, Judge.

Suit by G.S. Wright against the City of McMinnville and others. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

This is a suit to enjoin the issue of municipal bonds. It is alleged in the complaint that the defendant the city of McMinnville is a municipal corporation, and the defendants Leroy Lewis and A.C. Chandler are, respectively, its mayor and recorder that plaintiff is an inhabitant and taxpayer of the city that the requisite number of legal voters filed with the city recorder an initiative petition for an amendment of the city charter, so as to authorize an issue of bonds, not exceeding $10,000, which sum was to be used in substituting cast-iron pipe of a given diameter for wooden water mains; that an ordinance was enacted authorizing a special election to be held March 20, 1911, to vote upon the proposed amendment that such municipal enactment empowered the mayor and the recorder to give notice of the election, "and to do each, every and all the acts or deeds required or directed by them to be done or performed, said election to be in all respects called and conducted in accordance with the provisions of the charter of the city of McMinnville" that section 8 of the charter requires the recorder to give 10 days' notice of election, "posted in three public places in the city"; that notices of the election were duly issued, but only one copy was posted, and in lieu thereof the recorder caused the notice to be printed in two consecutive weekly issues of newspapers published in the city, and also printed a pamphlet which contained a copy of the proposed amendment having on the cover of the publication a statement that the election would be held March 20, 1911 that the pamphlet was mailed to each voter in the city, so far as could be ascertained, and a notice was published in the newspapers that if any elector had not received a copy of the pamphlet he could secure one by calling upon the city recorder at a designated place; that at the election held at the time appointed 148 votes were cast in favor of the proposed amendment and 116 against it; that at the preceding general election held in that city 204 more votes were polled than at such special election; that by reason of the failure to post notices in three public places the election was void and the proposed amendment inoperative; that a sale of the municipal securities has been...