Washington v. Page
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco. The facts of the case sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Courl.
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. Ch. J. Murray
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mr. J. Heydenpeldt concurred.
This was an application to the Court below for a mandamus to compel the respondent, as Clerk of the Common Council of the City of San Francisco, to make publication of certain notices in the newspaper called the “Placer Times and Transcript. ”
It is admitted to be the duty of the respondent to make proper publication of such notices, and also, that a mandamus will lie under the 468th section of the Practice Act, at the suit of the appellant, who is interested in the publication.
*389But it is contended that the Act of…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Ex parte PollardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1866
- Bowman v. CockrillSupreme Court of Kansas · 1870
- Ex parte NewmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Clark v. City of Los AngeLesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Law v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.