Legal Opinion

Perrin v. Honeycutt

California Supreme Court

Decided July 8, 1904No. Sac. No. 1241PublishedCited by 12 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

COOPER, C.

Defendants demurrer to the plaintiff’s verified petition for a writ of mandate was sustained, and judgment entered in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment.

It appears, from the petition, that the defendant is and was at all times named therein the county auditor of Madera County. .

That on the second day of October, 1901, by reason of an error and mistake, made by defendant, as auditor, in his estimate of the amount necessary to redeem certain real estate, situate in Madera County, and which had been sold to the state for delinquent taxes, the plaintiff paid to the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hayes v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Birch v. County of OrangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Wallace v. Board of EducationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  3. Wenzler v. Municipal Court for the Pasadena Judicial DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  4. Boggs v. JordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Ross v. O'BRIENCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API