Legal Opinion

Desmond v. Dunn

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1880No. 7,213PublishedCited by 21 opinions

Application for writ of mandamus. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Sharpstein, J.:

The plaintiff alleges that on the 1st day of J une-, 1880, he presented to the defendant, who then was, and still is, the *246Auditor of the City and County of San Francisco, for allowance, a demand on the treasury of said city and county, which it was the duty of said Auditor to allow, under an act of the Legislature, entitled, “ An Act to provide for the organization, incorporation, and government of merged and consolidated cities and counties of more than one hundred thousand population, pursuant to the provisions of § 7, art. xi, of the Constitution of this State. Approved…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Devine v. Board of CommissionersIllinois Supreme Court · 1877
  2. State ex rel. Wise v. ButtonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1869

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. In re GuerreroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Kahn v. SutroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Staude v. Board of Election CommissionersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
  4. Denman v. BroderickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Martin v. Board of Election CommissionersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API