A. Mau & Co. v. Liddle
Nevada Supreme Court
I. The law does not provide for the redemption of any portion of a warrant. It must be redeemed in full, if at all. “ Purchased and redeemed,” must be written on the face of it. (Stat. 1877, 54.) II. Mandamus does not lie in this case. The board had already acted in the premises. (Treadway v. Wright, 4 Nev. 119.) Certiorari would correct the error, but mandamus would be fruitless. {McGuire v. Waterman, 5 Nev. 323.)
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Leonard, J.:
In 1875, by an act of the legislature of this state (Stat. 1875, 154), the town of Hamilton, in White Pine county, was disincorporated, and provision was made for the payment of its indebtedness. The board of county commissioners of that county was made a board of trustees, with certain specified powers and duties. In 1877, a supplemental act was passed (Stat. 1877, 54), providing, among other things, that whenever five hundred dollars or more shall be in the “Hamilton Debt Fund,” the board of county commissioners of White Pine county “shall advertise for sealed…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Humboldt County v. County CommissionersNevada Supreme Court · 1870
3Cited by3 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Matzdorf v. ScottNevada Supreme Court · 1930
- State ex rel. Mighels v. EggersNevada Supreme Court · 1913
- State ex rel. Holley v. BoerlinNevada Supreme Court · 1908