McCracken v. City of San Francisco
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Twelfth District. On the trial, which was before the Court, by consent of parties, plaintiff introduced in evidence section eight of an ordinance of the city of San Francisco, passed November 4th, 1852, and also Ordinance No. 493, both of which appear in the opinion of the Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Twelfth District. On the trial, which was before the Court, by consent of parties, plaintiff introduced in evidence section eight of an ordinance of the city of San Francisco, passed November 4th, 1852, and also Ordinance No. 493, both of which appear in the opinion of the Court. It was admitted that the land described in said section eight is the same land which is ordered to be sold by Ordinance No. 481, which was also introduced in evidence, and is as follows: “ Ordinance 481—To provide for the sale of certain city property. “ The people of the city of San Francisco do…
1ConcurrenceCope, J.
I concur in the judgment of reversal, but as I differ with the Chief Justice upon certain points in the case, it is proper that I should state the reasons which control my opinion upon these points. The plaintiff relies for a recovery upon the invalidity of the contract under which the money in controversy was paid. It is claimed that the contract was void for want of authority in the persons professing to represent the city, and that the money was paid under a misapprehension upon this subject, and without consideration. There is no doubt of the invalidity of the contract; but it appears…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Lovett v. Steam Saw Mill Ass'nNew York Court of Chancery · 1836
- Collins v. MerrellCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
- Moyer v. ShoemakerNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Rathbone v. StockingNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- President of the Berks & Dauphin Turnpike Road v. MyersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1820