Legal Opinion

Livingston v. Widber

California Supreme Court

Decided December 28, 1896No. S. F. No. 370PublishedCited by 1 opinion

APPEAL from Superior Court, City and! County of San Francisco; James M. Seawell, Judge. Proceeding by one Livingston and others against one Widber, treasurer, etc., for a writ of mandate. There was a judgment for petitioners and defendant appeals.

1Per curiam

The plaintiffs sought by this proceeding a writ of mandate commanding the defendant, as treasurer of the city and county of San Francisco, to pay certain coupons of the Dupont street bonds. The defendant pleaded as a defense to the proceeding that the moneys in his hands belonging to the Dupont street fund had been paid in under protest, and that the parties paying the same had instituted an action, entitled “Davis v. The City and County of San Francisco,” which was then pending in this court, and undetermined, for the recovery of the moneys so paid, and that for this reason he was entitled…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Davis v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Olwell v. Nye & Nissen Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1946

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

Powered by the Exa API