Case Name: Des Moines City Ry. Co. et al., Appellants, v. Horace G. Susong, City Clerk, Appellee
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1914-12-19
Citations: 168 Iowa 128
Docket Number: 
Parties: Des Moines City Ry. Co. et al., Appellants, v. Horace G. Susong, City Clerk, Appellee.
Judges: Ladd, C. J., Weaver and Evans, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 168
Pages: 128–129

Head Matter:
Des Moines City Ry. Co. et al., Appellants, v. Horace G. Susong, City Clerk, Appellee.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS: Ordinances — Referendum—Statu1 tory Construction. See. 1056-a37, Code Supp. 1913, is not applicable to the enactment of franchise ordinances such as are contemplated by Sec. 1056-a30 of said supplement.
Appeal from Pollc District Court. — Hon. W. H. McHenry, Judge.
Saturday, December 19, 1914.
Action in mandamus to require appellee to canvass and certify an alleged petition purporting to be signed by more than twenty-five per cent of the voters of the city of Des Moines, requesting the passage of an ordinance as provided by Sec. 1056-a37 of the Supplement to the Code. There was a demurrer to the petition, and a concession as to a fact not contained in the petition which it was agreed the court might take into consideration in determining the demurrer. The demurrer was sustained and plaintiff electing to stand upon its petition, the petition was dismissed. Plaintiff appeals.—
Affirmed.
M. H. Cohen, Parker, Parrish & Miller, for appellant.
E. W. Byers, E. C. Carlson and E. M. Steer, for appellee.
Wm. Chamberlain as Amicus Curiae.

Opinion:
Preston, J.
The case was advanced and submitted at this December period, on December 18, 1914. On this December 19, the court is about to adjourn until January 12, 1915. Because an election is soon to be held to vote on a street railway franchise, counsel for either side request an early decision. After consultation it has been decided that the ruling of the district court should be affirmed.
Under the circumstances, it is considered advisable to announce the decision at this time. The opinion will, therefore, be brief. . A number of points have been argued, which, in the opinion of the court, are not involved -in this appeal. Only such points as properly arise will be considered and determined. We are of the opinion that the defendant is not required to canvass and certify the petition for the reason that Code Supplement Sec. 1056-a37 is not applicable to the enactment of franchise ordinances such as are contemplated by See. 1056-'a30 of the Supplement. This was the holding of the trial court, and its ruling is — Affirmed.
Ladd, C. J., Weaver and Evans, JJ., concur.