Freehill v. Chamberlain
California Supreme Court
Petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent, treasurer of the city of Sacramento, to pay the amount due upon certain interest coupons of bonds of the city; The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMyrick, J.
Mandamus to compel the treasurer to pay certain coupons, being for interest on bonds. The bonds were issued under authority of the Act of the legislature of April 24, *6041858. (Stats. 1858, p. 280, § 37.) According to section 35 of that act, fifty-five per cent of certain revenues therein named were set apart and appropriated to the payment of the annual interest and final redemption of the bonds. The bonds were issued by the city and received by the holders on the faith thus pledged for the payment of interest and for redemption. It became the duty of the treasurer to pay the coupons as…
2Cited by29 opinions
- Barnes v. GlideCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Ingram v. ColganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Hewel v. HoginCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
- Littlefield v. City of ShreveportSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1921
- Irvine v. BossenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.