Arthur v. City of Petaluma
California Supreme Court
APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate to compel the allowance and payment of a claim against the City of Petaluma. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Lippitt & Lippitt, R. L. Thompson, and Newton A. Johnson, for Petitioner. G. P. Hall, W. P. Cowan, and E. J. Dole, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtAngellotti, C. J.
This is a proceeding in mandate to compel the allowance and payment of a claim of petitioner against the city of Petaluma. The proceeding was commenced in the district court of appeal of the third appellate district, and was ordered transferred to this court because of the inability of the judges of that court to agree upon a judgment.
Petitioner’s claim was for printing done by him for the city during the fiscal year 1910-11, in his newspaper, the “Petaluma Daily Courier,” the contract for city printing for that year having been awarded to him as the lowest bidder for the work. The particular…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- McBean v. City of FresnoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Higgins v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Nougues v. DouglassCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
- San Francisco Gas Co. v. BrickwedelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Lewis v. WidberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Brandon v. BrandonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1922
- City of Long Beach v. LisenbyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Mahoney v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- County of Los Angeles v. ByramCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- County of Los Angeles v. PayneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.