Miller v. Curry
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J. M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. .
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
The action is mandate to compel defendant county clerk to file an answer in a civil case without the payment of the fees required by the act of March 28, 1895, establishing the fees of county, township, and other officers, and of jurors and witnesses, in this state. (Stats. 1895, p. 267.)
The sole question presented on this appeal, and therefore the only question to be decided, is the applicability of the said act of 1895 to the city and county of San Francisco.
At the time of the adoption of the present constitution the fee bill for the city and county of San Francisco was found in an act…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Pausch v. GuerrardSupreme Court of Georgia · 1881
- State ex rel. Attorney-General v. PearcySupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- City of Evansville v. BayardIndiana Supreme Court · 1872
3Cited by9 opinions
- Beneficial Loan Society, Ltd. v. HaightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Hilton v. CurryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Crowley v. FreudCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- King v. LeavyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Reid v. GroezingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.