People Ex Rel Coe v. City of Los Angeles

Good Law
187 Cal. 56·1921 Cal. LEXIS 329·200 P. 947
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 15, 1921L. A. No. 6525.California5,516 words

Opinion

Dissenting Opinion

Wilbur, J.

Dissenting. I dissent.

The statute under which the election was held expressly provides for the form of ballot. Ballots in this form were used at the election. Section 5 of the. act, which regulates the procedure in the event that the assumption of a portion of the bonded indebtedness of the larger city is involved, after expressly providing for the filing of a petition praying that “the property in such municipal corporations, shall after such consolidation, be subject to taxation at the same rate, to pay any of such bonded indebtedness specified in said petition; ...” then provides, as stated in the main opinion, that “the question of such consolidation shall be submitted to the electors in such municipal corporation not having the greatest population, the same in all respects as upon a petition presented under the provisions of section two, excepting that the notice of election shall, in addition to the matters required by said section, distinctly state that it is proposed that the property in such municipal corporations shall be taxed at the same rate to pay such bonded indebtedness set forth in said petition.” (Italics mine.X Thus the legislature dealt with the question of…

Lead Opinion

Angellotti, J.

This proceeding is one of quo wwrrcmto, instituted by the attorney-general on the relation of Charles Coe. By it the people of the state assail the validity of the consolidation proceedings under which it is claimed by the city of Los Angeles that the city of Sawtelle has become consolidated with and is a part of the city of Los Angeles, and under which the latter city is exercising municipal governmental functions over the city of Sawtelle. The judgment of the trial court was in favor of the defendant, and 'we have before us an appeal from such judgment.

The city of. Sawtelle existed up to Hay 4, 1917, as a separate municipality of Los Angeles County. On that day an election was held therein, pursuant to proceedings theretofore regularly had, to determine whether it should be consolidated with the larger city of Los Angeles, with the result that by a majority of three or four out of a total vote of something over a thousand, it was declared that the cities should consolidate. No question is raised as to the effectiveness of the election held in the city of Los Angeles. The principal claim of appellant is that by reason of the form of ballot used in the election in Sawtelle the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.