Meyer v. Widber
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. William B. Daingerfield, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.
—Mandamus to compel the payment of certain Dupont street bonds and coupons. Under an act of the legislature, approved March 25, 1876 (Stats. 1876, p. 443), the city of San Francisco was authorized to widen Dupont street, and to issue bonds in payment of damages to owners of property on said street. The bonds were each for the sum of one thousand dollars, and the coupons called for thirty-five dollars each. Plaintiff was the owner of twelve of these bonds, and four hundred and eight coupons. Intervenor Bohen was the owner of .sixteen bonds and thirty-two coupons. Plaintiff made his demand for…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Meyer v. PorterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
3Cited by17 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Gillespie v. CarltonSupreme Court of Florida · 1931
- Hewel v. HoginCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
- State Ex Rel. Dupont-Ball, Inc. v. LivingstonSupreme Court of Florida · 1932
- State Ex Rel. Sturdivant Bank v. Little River Drainage DistrictSupreme Court of Missouri · 1934
- Rohwer v. GibsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.