Rose v. Estudillo
California Supreme Court
This case arose upon, a petition to the Supreme Court, in the exercise of original jurisdiction, for a writ of mandate, to compel the Treasurer of San Diego County to pay certain warrants issued by the Auditor of said county, which had been duly presented to him for payment, and indorsed “not paid foi' want of funds,” prior to the passage of the Act for funding the unfunded indebtedness of said county. The other facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.
On the 18th of March, A. D. 1868, an Act was passed by the Legislature to provide for the government of the County of San Diego. Among other things, that Act provides for the funding of the funded indebtedness of the county, and creates a Board of Commissioners, whose duty it is to “carefully examine into the legality or illegality of all the unfunded indebtedness, accounts, warrants, vouchers, claims,, or demands of every nature or character whatever, which now are or may remain outstanding against said county on the first day of April, 1868; and they shall audit and allow, or reject in…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People ex rel. McCauley & Tevis v. BrooksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Robinson v. MageeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Sharp v. County of Contra CostaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Emeric v. GilmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Hunsaker v. BordenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
3Cited by6 opinions
- Green v. DuvergeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Sawyer v. ColganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Youngs v. HallNevada Supreme Court · 1874
- Leavenworth National Bank v. ReillySupreme Court of Kansas · 1916
- People v. MorseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.