Legal Opinion

City of San Luis Obispo v. Fitzgerald

California Supreme Court

Decided October 6, 1899No. S.F. No. 2000PublishedCited by 12 opinions

■ PETITION for writ of mandate from the Supreme Court to the Treasurer of the City of San Luis Obispo. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, J.

—This is an original application to this court for a writ of mandate to compel the treásurer uf the city of San Luis Obispo to accept from the said D. J. Harris the purchase money for certain bonds of said city, and to issue to said Harris said bonds. The defendant’s refusal is based upon the ground that the election held for the issuance of said bonds was illegal and void.

Any city, town, or municipal corporation is authorized to incur indebtedness to pay the cost of any municipal improvement, requiring an expenditure greater than allowed by the annual tax levy, whenever the legislative…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Tebbe v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Murphy v. City of San Luis ObispoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. City of Jacksonville v. BowdenSupreme Court of Florida · 1914
  2. People v. Town of OntarioCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  3. Irish v. HahnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Chapman v. City of FullertonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  5. Harrison v. HortonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907

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