Mitchell v. Patterson
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, and from an order after judgment changing the findings, judgment, -order, and statement of the case. J. S. Noyes, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
HAYNES, C.
Mandamus to compel the defendant as treasurer to pay two certain warrants issued to the plaintiff by said irrigation district for his salary, as treasurer, accrued during his incumbency of that office. The plaintiff had judgment awarding a peremptory writ of mandate, and the defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The first of these warrants was fully set out in the complaint, including the signature “W. F. Perry, President.” No issue was made as to the identity of the warrant or the signature of the president. In the findings this…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lewis v. WidberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Welch v. StrotherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Hunt v. BroderickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hewel v. HoginCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
- Biggart v. LewisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Ser-Vis v. Victor Valley Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Wilbur v. Board of DirectorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928