Thomason v. Ashworth
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court, and in the dissenting opinion of Justice McICinstry.
1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.
Application for writ of mandate to the defendant as superintendent of streets, commanding him to enter into and sign a contract under the street law for the city and county of San Francisco, passed April 1, 1872.
The contract, the. execution of which is sought to be compelled herein, is one to be entered into in advance of the assessment and collection of the money to be paid for the work done under it, under the provisions of the act of 1872, and in this regard this act may be held to be done away with by the provisions of the constitu*75tion. This we consider as settled in this '.court by the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railroad v. IowaSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- McAunich v. Mississippi & Missouri RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1866
- Brooks v. HydeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Oakland Paving Co. v. TompkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Knickerbocker v. People ex rel. ButzIllinois Supreme Court · 1882
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- People v. California Fish Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
- Hellman v. ShoultersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Ex Parte BraunCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Ladd v. HolmesOregon Supreme Court · 1901
- Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.