Legal Opinion

Fairchild v. Wall

California Supreme Court

Decided February 16, 1892No. 13684PublishedCited by 7 opinions

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

  1. Wood v. StrotherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Hays v. SteigerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Hannon v. MaddenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Lambert v. BatesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Mitchell v. McKevittCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  4. Santa Rosa Lighting Co. v. WoodwardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  5. Kerr v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900

2 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