Legal Opinion

Boyce v. County of Pima

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided July 29, 1922No. Civil No. 2017PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRoss, C. J.

This is an action of mandamus by the • counties of Pima, Yavapai, Coconino, and Maricopa, against Jesse L. Boyce, auditor, and Harry S. Eoss, • treasurer, of the state, to compel said officers to audit, allow and pay their claims against a certain fund *261known as the county bond land fund. Defendants, by way of answer, objected to the jurisdiction of the court, and demurred to the complaint on various grounds. The court, holding that it had jurisdiction, overruled all the demurrers and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, as prayed for in their complaint. The appellants have appealed…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Utter v. FranklinSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
  2. Lewis v. Pima CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1894

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Trustees for Alaska v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Bryant v. Board of Loan CommissionersNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Washington v. Maricopa CountyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1945

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

Powered by the Exa API