Legal Opinion

City of San Francisco v. Heynemann

California Supreme Court

Decided September 28, 1886No. 8823PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtRoss, J.

The respondent, Heynemann, became surety on the official bond of Alexander Austin as tax collector of the city and county of San Francisco for the two years commencing the first Monday of December, 1870, and ending the first Monday of December, 1872, when Austin’s term of office expired. During his term, the latter as tax collector received certain moneys which he failed to pay over or to account for. Nearly five years after-wards, to wit, April 26, 1877, plaintiff demanded of Austin the money which he failed and refused to pay, and nine years from the expiration of Austin’s term of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. PoultererCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  2. County of San Luis Obispo v. KingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. People ex rel. Dunn v. Van NessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Clelland v. McCumberSupreme Court of Colorado · 1890
  3. People v. BurkhartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  4. People v. WeinekeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API