State ex rel. Ganzhorn v. Carr
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals. The case is reported in 1 Mo. App. 490. The charter distinctly declares; and in most positive terms, that the ordinance must be l’eturned by the mayor within the ten days, or it shall become a law in the same manner as if he had approved and signed it; hence, if the council be not in session during the whole ten days, to avail himself of his qualified privilege of veto, he must return it before the adjournment, and within ten days, or…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals. The case is reported in 1 Mo. App. 490. The charter distinctly declares; and in most positive terms, that the ordinance must be l’eturned by the mayor within the ten days, or it shall become a law in the same manner as if he had approved and signed it; hence, if the council be not in session during the whole ten days, to avail himself of his qualified privilege of veto, he must return it before the adjournment, and within ten days, or it becomes a law independent of his action. 1 Story’s Com. on Const. § 891. The time specified by the charter, during…
1Opinion of the CourtHough, J.
On the 22nd day of March, 1870, an ordinance was passed by the city council of the city of St. Louis, directing the auditor of said city to draw his .warrant upon the treasurer thereof, in favor of the relator for the sum of $5108.91. This ordinance was signed by the president of the council, and forwarded to the mayor for his approval, but was neither approved by the mayor nor returned by him to the council, that hody having adjourned sine die within ten days after the passage of said ordinance.' The object of the present proceeding is to compel the' auditor to draw a warrant in conformity…
2Cited by2 opinions
- City of St. Charles v. StookeyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
- Galligan v. LeonardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910