From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Strother

Supreme Court of California
Oct 30, 1885
67 Cal. 624 (Cal. 1885)

Summary

In People v. Strother, 67 Cal. 624, 8 P. 383, it was the only issue of any importance, and it was squarely decided that the amendment had been constitutionally adopted.

Summary of this case from Graham v. Jones

Opinion

Application for a writ of mandate.

COUNSEL:

Attorney-General Marshall, W. T. Baggett, and Hall & Rodgers, for Petitioner.

Doyle, Galpin & Scripture, for Respondent.


JUDGES: In Bank. Myrick, J. Morrison, C. J., Ross, J., and McKinstry, J., concurred.

OPINION

MYRICK, Judge

Application for mandamus to compel the auditor of the city and county of San Francisco to enter in his books an increase of the assessments by adding a percentage in accordance with the direction of the State board of equalization.

The reasons presented on behalf of the auditor why the writ should not issue have been considered by us. For lack of time we cannot enter into a full discussion in this judgment of those reasons. As the time for performing the duty is rapidly passing, it is of more immediate importance to know the duty than its reasons. Other cases are before us involving some of the questions here concerned; and in those cases we shall give our views more at length.

The substantial question involved is whether the amendment of section 9, article xiii., of the Constitution was properly adopted. Independent of that question there is but little in the objections urged on behalf of respondent; no matter appears to us which renders it impossible for him to comply with the order.

We are of opinion that the amendment referred to was constitutionally adopted.

Let the writ issue as prayed for, forthwith.


Summaries of

People v. Strother

Supreme Court of California
Oct 30, 1885
67 Cal. 624 (Cal. 1885)

In People v. Strother, 67 Cal. 624, 8 P. 383, it was the only issue of any importance, and it was squarely decided that the amendment had been constitutionally adopted.

Summary of this case from Graham v. Jones

In People v. Strother, 67 Cal. 624, it was the only issue of any importance, and it was squarely decided that the amendment had been constitutionally adopted.

Summary of this case from Oakland Paving Co. v. Tompkins
Case details for

People v. Strother

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Petitioner, v. FLEET F. STROTHER, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 30, 1885

Citations

67 Cal. 624 (Cal. 1885)
8 P. 383

Citing Cases

Thomason v. Ruggles

I agree with Mr. Justice Myrick that the constitutional amendment of 1884, removing the inhibition contained…

People v. Pittsburg Railroad Co.

In both the assessment was made by the assessor prior to the meeting of the county board of equalization. In…