Irwin

This is an original application for a writ of mandate to compel the respondent, as city clerk, to countersign municipal bonds in the sum of $15,000, alleged to have been duly authorized by the voters of the petitioner at a special election.

The ordinance calling the election recites that “It is proposed to incur an indebtedness against the City of North Sacramento in the sum of $15,000 for the construction and completion of the outfall sewer pipe line over and across the American River.’’ Section 2 of the ordinance provides:

Adapting the language of the opinion in McAndrew v. Borough of Dunmore, 245 Pa. 101 [ 91 Atl. 237 ], there was no authority in the city council, in disregard of the plain requirements of the statute, to provide that no interest shall be paid prior to January 1, 1930, or that no part of the principal shall be paid prior to January 1, 1931. The departure from the requirements of the statute is sub stantial and material. If the time of payment fixed by the statute may be enlarged by one year by the ordinance calling the election, it may be extended any number of years, in the discretion of the council. Since the ordinance fails to comply with the requirements…

The petitioner has applied for a re hearing. It is urged that it was unnecessary to recite, in the ordinance calling the election, when the first payments of principal and interest would be made and, therefore, the recitals thereof may be treated as surplusage and that they constitute “no part whatever of the proposition voted upon by the elector.” The proposition as stated in the ordinance, however, was the one, and the only one, approved by the voters. As said in Skinner v. City of Santa Rosa, 107 Cal. 464, 472 [29 L. R. A. 512, 40 Pac. 742 ], “particulars were inserted in the submission which the statute did not require to be submitted; but these particulars having been submitted, the vote authorizing the indebtedness to be incurred imports the particulars named as the conditions upon which that assent has been given, and hence no one can say that without these favorable conditions the result of the election would have authorized the indebtedness to be incurred.” Petitioner relies upon City of Santa Barbara v. Davis, 6 Cal. App. 342 [ 92 Pac. 308 ], Derby & Co. v. City of Modesto, 104 Cal. 515 [ 38 Pac. 900 ], and Law v. San Francisco, 144 Cal. 384 [ 77 Pac. 1014 ]. In each of…