City of San Luis Obispo v. Haskin
California Supreme Court
Application, to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to require .the defendant, as treasurer of the city of San Luis Obispo, to issue bonds. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.
It is admitted that the plaintiffs are entitled to the writ prayed for, if the notice required by section 3 of the act of March 19, 1889, and published by order of the board of trustees, sufficiently stales the amount of tax levy which is to be made for the payment of the bonds and interest for each year during the existence of the debt. The act provides that the notice shall state “ the number and character of the bonds to be issued, the rate of interest to be paid, and the amount of tax levy to be made for the payment thereof.” (Stats. 1889, p. 400.)
The board passed and published ordinances…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- People ex rel. Kern County v. BakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by2 opinions
- In re Difference & Controversy between E. M. Derby & Co. & City of ModestoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- City of San Diego v. PotterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908