Meyer v. Porter
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Sacramento. The judgment was upon demurrer to the appellant’s petition for a writ of mandate. The facts arc stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKee, J.
Application for a writ of mandate to compel the treasurer of the city of Sacramento to pay, out of funds in the city treasury, certain past due and payable coupons, belong*69ing to bonds, issued by the city of Sacramento, of which the plaintiff is the owner and holder.
The fund, out of which payment is demanded, is known as the “ interest and sinking fund ” of the city of Sacramento. It is admitted there was in that fund, when the coupons were presented and payment demanded, the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, yet the treasurer refused to pay, and the court below sustained him in his refusal.
2Cited by28 opinions
- City of Austin v. CahillTexas Supreme Court · 1905
- Bedell v. HerringCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- State Ex Rel. Gillespie v. CarltonSupreme Court of Florida · 1931
- Hewel v. HoginCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
- Cal. Safe Deposit & Tr. Co. v. Sierra Valleys Ry.California Supreme Court · 1910
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.