Coulter v. Pool
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sonoma County. Emmett Seawell, Judge. Reversed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtLennon, J.
In this proceeding the plaintiff sought, and was denied, mandamus to compel the defendants, respectively, the auditor and the treasurer of the county of Sonoma, to audit and pay the claim of plaintiff presented against said county in the sum of $39.24 for labor alleged to have been performed by the plaintiff upon certain of said county’s highways.
The claim in controversy is founded primarily upon the admitted fact that plaintiff performed labor upon said highways under and by virtue of the direction and authority of one of the supervisors of said county elected from and representing the…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Mugler v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- United States v. HartwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- Matter of Application of JacobsNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- United States v. GermaineSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- People ex rel. Throop v. LangdonMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by81 opinions
- City of Atascadero v. Merill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1999
- Kugler v. YocumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Lockyer v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- Dibb v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- People v. BrophyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
76 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.