holding the procedure is not mandatory, but, if substantially followed, will be sufficient
How later courts described this case
- holding the procedure is not mandatory, but, if substantially followed, will be sufficient
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KORNEGAY, J.
(dissenting). I am not able to agree that this court has jurisdiction of this proceeding in error. At one time appellate jurisdiction in connection with initiated measures in cities was conferred upon district courts. This provision was specially repealed by the provisions of chapter 66 of the Session Laws of 1910, page 121, and since that time no provision has been made for an appeal in city initiated matter^. It seems to me that when the parties themselves think they are proceeding by petition in error, this court should not, of its own motion, change the proceedings into an original proceeding, as is done here. It seems to me that if any court has jurisdiction to review the clerk’s action, it is the district .court in the county in which CusMng lies, and by original proceeding in mandamus.
Note. — See under (1) 6 R. C. L. 650; R. O.L. Perm. Supp. p. 1599. (3) 25 R. O. L. 999; R. O. L. Perm. Supp. p. 5639.