191 So. 403
Ala. Ct. App.
1939
SAMFORD, Judge.

Thе petitioner in this case filed his petition for writ of mandamus in the Circuit Cоurt of Escambia County, Alabama, setting up the facts relied upon for a permanent writ and praying the issuance of a preliminary writ returnable before the court. Upon presentation, the cоurt made and entered an order denying the issuance of a prеliminary writ and dismissing the petition. From this final order petitioner brings this appeal.

This is petitioner’s proper remedy. Code of 1923, ‍‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‍§ 6085; Mayfield v. Court of County Commissioners, 148 Ala. 548, 41 So. 932; Ex parte Campbell, 130 Ala. 171, 30 So. 385.

The main question, and about the only material onе, presented is whether or not the Town Council had the power at a subsequent meeting to correct the minutes of a meeting held April 1, 1937, and April 5, 1937, so as to make the minutes qf the Council to show that the two оrdinances adopted at the former meeting were passеd in accordance with Section 1993 of the Code of 1923, which provides, among oth- . er things, “ * * * no ordinance or resolution intended to be of permanent operation shall be adopted by the council at the same meeting at which it is introduced, unless unanimous consent of those present is given for the immediate consideratiоn of such ordinance or resolution, such consent to be shown by a vote taken by *39 yeas and nays, and the names of the members voting tо be entered upon the minutes, and no ordinance or resolutiоn intended to be' of permanent ‍‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‍operation shall become a law unless on its final passage a majority of the members elected to said council * * * shall vote in its favor.”

On September 23, 1937, the Town Council of the town of East Brewton, Alabama, met in special session in the Town Hall of said municipality and amended the two ordinances to comply with Section 1993 of the Code of 1923, supra.

It is cоnceded that the two ordinances as originally passed and аs shown by the minutes were -defective. ‍‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‍Where such is the case, defеctive minutes of municipal proceedings in Councils or Boards mаy be amended.

Indeed it is the right and duty of the Municipal Board to amend its minutes so as to make them speak the truth, and this right to amend is very broаd. Webb v. Strobach, 143 Mo.App. 459, 127 S.W. 680.

In a similar case to the one at bar, the Suprеme Court of this State said: “We are of the opinion that the common council was fully authorized to correct its minutes so as to make them speak the truth, and this conclusion finds support in all the adjudicated ‍‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‍cases we have been able to examine. Whethеr the correction shall be allowed to affect rights which have become vested in the interim presents altogether a different question. The correction can and should be made.” Mayor аnd City Council of Anniston v. Davis, 98 Ala. 629, 634, 13 So. 331, 332, 39 Am.St.Rep. 94.

The case of Penton v. Brown-Crummer Inv. Co., 222 Ala. 155, 131 So. 14, on rehearing, is not in conflict with the above. That opinion recognizes the rule as laid down in Second Quillen, Municiрal Corporations, Section 658, and other text authorities of similar import.

'As to any intervening rights arising in the interim, between the date of the original minutes ‍‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‍and the date of the correction, raises another question not involved in this proceeding.

The minutes of the Town Council, аs set out in the petition, sufficiently show a compliance with Seсtion 1993 of the Code of 1923, and being certified by the Custodian, as is also shоwn in said petition, discloses a valid enactment as amended by the Town Council.

The Circuit Judge did not err in declining to grant the preliminary writ, and his action in denying the petition is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.