Fairchild v. Wall
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Foote, C.
This action is to obtain a writ of mandamus to compel the defendant to enter into a contract for street-work with the plaintiff, to whom, it is claimed, a contract for street-work had been awarded by the city council of the city of Oakland, to which tribunal such authority is delegated by the charter of that city.
A demurrer was filed to the affidavit, upon which an alternative writ of mandate was issued, which reads thus: “Now comes J. S. Wall, superintendent, etc., defendant, and makes return to the alternative mandamus, and demurs to the affidavit upon which the same was issued…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wood v. StrotherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Hays v. SteigerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hannon v. MaddenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Lambert v. BatesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Mitchell v. McKevittCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Santa Rosa Lighting Co. v. WoodwardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Kerr v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.