Legal Opinion
Chilton v. Rolph
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 11, 1922No. Civ. No. 4318Published
PBOCEEDING in Mandamus to require the levy and collection of a tax sufficient to pay a judgment against a municipality. Writ granted. The facts are the same as those stated in the opinion in Oscar Heyman & Brother (a Corporation) v. Eckwin C. Bath et al., ante, p. 499.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
[1] Let a peremptory writ issue as prayed on the authority of Oscar Heyman & Brother (a Corporation) v. Edwin C. Bath et al., ante, p. 499 [208 Pac. 981].
A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of - appeal, was denied by the supreme court on September 7, 1922.
All the Justices present concurred.
Bichards, J., pro tern., and Myers, J., pro tern., were acting.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Oscar Heyman Brother v. BathCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922