Legal Opinion
Cotton-Macauley Co. v. Deshields
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 3, 1921No. Civ. No. 2298PublishedCited by 2 opinions
MOTION to dismiss an appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
PLUMMER, P. J., pro tem.
On the third day of December, 1920, a judgment was entered in the superior court of Tehama County for the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate, to be directed to the defendant Deshields, auditor of the county of Tehama, commanding him to forthwith draw and deliver to the plaintiff a warrant for. the payment of a claim against said county, in favor of the plaintiff, theretofore allowed by the board of supervisors, for building a certain bridge in said county. On the same day, the defendant Deshields and the intervener, Daniel B. Luten, who had been allowed to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Fogg v. Perris Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Slayden v. O'DeaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Guardianship of DegnanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- In Re Estate of WellsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
3Cited by2 opinions
- Cotton-Macauley Co. v. DeshieldsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Cunning v. CarrCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924