TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State ex rel. City of Lincoln v. Marsh

State, ex rel. City of Lincoln, relator v. George W. Marsh, Auditor of Public Accounts

State ex rel. City of Lincoln v. Marsh, 187 N.W. 88 (Neb. 1922)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Nebraska Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 16, 1922
Docket
No. 22590
Judges
Aldrich, Dickson, Elansburg, Morrissey, Rose, Stauffer
Citations
187 N.W. 88107 Neb. 6071922 Neb. LEXIS 187
Disposition
Writ allowed.
Headnotes
Municipal Corporations: Bonds: Elections: Primary and General. A state-wide primary election is a “general' election” at which, a majority vote is sufficient to carry a proposition to authorize the issuance of municipal bonds, within the meaning of the “Home Rule Charter” of the city of Lincoln, though the general city election is held on a different date and 60 per cent, of the vote on such a proposition is necessary to carry it at a special election.
Summary
Original proceeding in mandamus to compel respondent, as auditor of public accounts, to register bonds of relator.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Rose

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Rose, J.

The city of Lincoln, Nebraska, relator, invokes the original jurisdiction of the supreme court for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the auditor of public accounts, respondent, to register municipal bonds of relator in the sum of $200,000. . The bonds are called “Light Bonds.” They are dated January 1, 1922, and bear interest at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum, payable semiannually. The proposition to authorize the issuance of the bonds was submitted to the electors of relator April 20, 1920. There were 4,622 votes for and 3,533 against the bonds. Under the charter of relator a majority may vote bonds at a general election, but 60 per cent, of the total vote on the proposition is necessary, if submitted at a special election. Respondent resists the alloAvanee of the writ on the sole ground that the bond proposition Avas not submitted at a general election, and did not re *608 ceive an affirmative vote of 60 per cent, at a special election.

Relator is governed by what is called a “Home Rule Charter.” Thereunder provision is made for holding general city elections the first Tuesday in May in odd-numbered years. The charter provides that a proposition to authorize the issuance of utility bonds may be submitted either at “a general election” or “a special election called for that purpose.” The 60 per cent, vote essential to a bond issue is required only at a special election. The question therefore is: Was the majority vote in favor of the bonds April 20, 1920, cast at “a general election,” within the meaning of the city charter? That was the regular date on which the general statewide primary election was held pursuant to statute. The polls were open in all voting precincts of relator and elsewhere in the state. The state-wide primary is part of the election system of Nebraska and is commonly understood to be a general election. The general law, operating automatically as to time, fixes the date of the statewide primary without any other intervening cause. The public interest in the nomination of candidates for office is an inducement to the exercise of the elective franchise.The notice of the primary April 20, 1920, and of the bond proposition to be then submitted, was given alike to all voters of the city. This is clearly “a general election” within the meaning of the relator’s charter. It is thus distinguished from “a special election” called by the city council for the purpose of submitting to the electors a proposition to authorize the issuance of municipal bonds, where an affirmative vote of 60 per cent, is required.

The conclusion is that respondent, though prompted by a sense of public duty in refusing to register the bonds, has misconstrued the “Home Rule Charter” of the city of Lincoln and has pleaded no defense to the application.-

Writ allowed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1928: 11932: 11940: 12026: 119282026peak 1928 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State ex rel. Hilgers v. Weber322 Neb. 227 (2026)
  2. Central Power Co. v. Nebraska City112 F.2d 471 (8th Cir. 1940)
  3. State ex rel. City of Lincoln v. Johnson220 N.W. 273 (Neb. 1928)
  4. State ex rel. Long v. City of Nebraska City243 N.W. 858 (Neb. 1932)

Most recent

  1. State ex rel. Hilgers v. Weber322 Neb. 227 (2026)
  2. Central Power Co. v. Nebraska City112 F.2d 471 (8th Cir. 1940)
  3. State ex rel. Long v. City of Nebraska City243 N.W. 858 (Neb. 1932)
  4. State ex rel. City of Lincoln v. Johnson220 N.W. 273 (Neb. 1928)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list