(DOWNLOAD) "Palmer Et Al. v. Broadbent" by Supreme Court Of Utah # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Palmer Et Al. v. Broadbent
- Author : Supreme Court Of Utah
- Release Date : January 12, 1953
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 58 KB
Description
WADE, Justice. Plaintiffs, who with others are sometimes referred to as sponsors and petitioners, are residents and voters
of Cedar City, Utah, and they petition this court for an extraordinary writ, 1 requiring the defendants, who are the members
of the City Council and the City Recorder, to submit to the voters at the next regular city election, for approval or rejection,
an ordinance granting the Southern Utah Power Company a twenty year electric franchise. This ordinance was passed by the City
Council on February 19, 1953, and published on the 26th to become effective on March 21, 1953. 2 On March 7th, sixteen days after enactment and fourteen days before the effective date, the sponsors filed a petition with
the City Recorder for a referendum to the voters on that ordinance, together with an application for petition copies and circulation
sheets to be bound in 15 sections to be printed in legal form. Whereupon the Recorder certified to a true and correct copy
of such petition, and that she had received such petition on that day. On March 10th, after waiting the three days allowed
by law therefor, the Recorder solicited three printers for bids on that printing job. 3 On that day without waiting for
such bids, the sponsors presented to the Recorder the required forms, which had been printed at their expense, with the request
that she inspect and approve such forms and sign her name to the printed certificate with her name printed thereon and affix
thereto the corporate seal of the City. These forms which were presented to the Recorder are conceded to be correct in every
detail except that they were printed in 5 1/2 instead of 6 point type and lacked the certificate of the true and correct number
and title of the law as proposed for referendum. 4 They were printed at the same price and by the only printer who submitted
a bid for such work to the Recorder. The Recorder refused to execute and record these forms without advice from the City Attorney
and Council but did certify that she had received such petition and application and signed a certificate to a copy of the
petition presented to her that such is a true and correct copy of the Petition for Referendum, this she retained in her office.
Thereupon the sponsors took other copies of the forms submitted to the Recorder, which were bound in 15 sections, and proceeded
to circulate them for voters' signatures. On March 11th, the sponsors paid the $10 filing fee for filing the Petition for
Referendum, on the 12th, the City Attorney advised the sponsors that the Recorder refused to sign or attach thereto the corporate
seal of the City to the forms presented to her, because they had failed to substantially comply with the statute and that
all except one copy would be returned to them upon request, which was done on March 15, 1953.