Legal Opinion

Santa Cruz Water Co. v. Kron

California Supreme Court

Decided December 1, 1887No. 12025PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Application for a writ of mandate. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

The Court.

This is an application for a writ of mandate, commanding the defendants, Kron, Swanton, Jeter, and Squirm, constituting the common council of the city of Santa Cruz, to audit and allow a demand for interest on certain bonds of the city aforesaid, issued to purchase and pay for “ water-works,” and to command the mayor, Effey, who, as well as the city, is made a defendant, to draw his warrant on the city treasurer therefor.

The bonds in question were issued pursuant to authority conferred by an election held, or purporting to be held, under an act of the legislature approved March 9,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Andrews v. St. Louis Tunnel RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1884
  2. Kyburg v. PerkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Harrison v. ColganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  2. People v. RighthouseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  3. State Board of Election Commissioners v. ColemanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1930
  4. Rhodes v. SargentCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
  5. Walker v. LanningWashington Supreme Court · 1913

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API