Legal Opinion

Hodges v. Kauffman

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 20, 1928No. Docket No. 6348PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

A proceeding in mandamus was commenced by appellant in the superior court of San Mateo County to compel respondent, as treasurer of the city of South San Francisco, to pay to him, as assignee thereof, three warrants which had been allowed and issued to him by a vote of the majority of the board of trustees of the city. Two of the warrants, aggregating $233, were issued in payment of claims for fees in serving subpoenas upon certain witnesses and for sums paid to them as their fees and mileage; the third, amounting to $153.22, was for the claim of an expert witness. Judgment was…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. California Highway Commission v. RileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Mcconoughey v. JacksonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Linden v. CaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
  4. McFarland v. McCowenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  5. McGowan v. FordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Western Paving v. Bd. of Com'rs of LincolnSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1938
  2. Albright v. City of South San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
  3. Robbins v. Wayne County Board of AuditorsMichigan Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Opinion No. (1997), California Attorney General Reports1997
  5. Untitled California Attorney General Opinion, California Attorney General Reports1997

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

Powered by the Exa API