4 P.2d 922 | N.M. | 1931
Three of the relators are resident taxpayers of the village of Carrizozo. The other two were applicants for a franchise to erect and operate an electric light plant. They allege that they filed with the board of trustees an application therefor, accompanied by a proposed ordinance containing a complete draft of the terms of the franchise desired, and an ordinance submitting to the voters of the village the question of granting the franchise. They allege further the neglect, refusal, and delay of the board of trustees to call such election. By the alternative writ, the board was commanded to
"call an election * * * of the legal voters of the village * * * and submit to said legal voters * * * the question as to whether *598 or not the said legal voters * * * shall approve or reject said franchise * * * so filed * * *"
or show cause.
The answer raises legal questions only, some of which were sustained.
To entitle appellants to relief by mandamus, it was incumbent upon them to show a clear legal right. Carson Reclamation District v. Vigil,
Reliance is placed on 1929 Comp. § 90-402, sixty-eighth, which, in so far as material here, provides:
"Cities and towns shall have power to erect water works, or gas works, or authorize the erection of the same by others; but no such works shall be erected or authorized until a majority of the voters of the city or town, voting on the question at a general or special election, by vote approve the same."
It is impossible to construe this section as requiring submitting to the electors a franchise which the board of trustees does not approve.
State ex rel. Burg. v. City of Albuquerque,
The judgment will be affirmed, and the cause remanded. It is so ordered.
BICKLEY, C.J., and SADLER, J., concur.
PARKER and HUDSPETH, JJ., did not participate. *599