Weller v. Dickinson
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.
The complaint substantially states that “ section 23 of ordinance No. 1587 as amended by order No. 1923 of the city and county of San Francisco, provides: ‘No person shall, within the limits of the city and county of San Francisco, explode any blast or use powder or other explosive material for the purpose of blasting, unless he shall have first filed in the office of the clerk of the board of supervisors a good and sufficient bond, with two sureties, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars that he will pay all damages occasioned thereby, and that said sureties are jointly and severally bound…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Philbrook v. RandallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage District v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Ashton v. HeydenfeldtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Bennett v. BennettNebraska Supreme Court · 1902
- State Ex Rel. v. Hooker, County JudgeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.