ISBN: 9781154188066

This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1911. Not illustrat… More...

This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1911. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... Opinion of the Court--Stewart, J., on Rehearing. Limit of territory included in this ordinance commencing at a point where Sixty street intersects with the Spokane river, thence running in an easterly direction to Idaho street, thence running south to Spokane river, thence along the main or north channel to the place of beginning. This is sufficient. It is next contended that the enacting clause of the ordinance is not in the form provided by sec. 2274, Rev. Codes. This section provides: The style of all ordinances shall be: ''Be it ordained by the mayor and council of the city of or the chairman and board of trustees of the village of.'' The enacting clause of Ordinance No. 36 reads as follows: Be it ordained by the town of Post Falls. It will thus be seen that the enacting clause of Ordinance No. 36 is not in the language of the statute. The enacting clause of an ordinance, however, is merely a declaration of intention and purpose, and the enacting clause of Ordinance No. 36 clearly shows ''the intention and purpose of the town of Post Falls to enact such ordinance and that it was the town of Post Falls which enacted the same, and such appearing from the enacting clause is a sufficient compliance with the statute. The statute is directory only. (McQuillan on Munic. Ordinances, sec. 145; City of Napa v. Easterly, 76 Cal. 222, 18 Pac. 253; State v. Fountain, 14 Wash. 236, 44 Pac. 270; People v. Murray, 57 Mich. 396, 24 N. W. 118; People v. Chipman, 31 Colo. 90, 71 Pac. 1108; 1 Dillon, Munic. Corp., 4th ed., sec. 309.) We think, therefore, that Ordinance No. 36 was a valid ordinance, and was in force at the time of the trial unless repealed by Ordinance No. 40. It is contended that Ordinance No. 40 is invalid for the reason that the title does not express the... Idaho. Supreme Court, Books, History, Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho (Volume 18) Books>History, General Books LLC<