Day v. Callow

5 Citing cases

  1. 4115,4116,| United States ex rel. Miller v. Clausen

    291 F. 231 (W.D. Wash. 1923)   Cited 3 times

    . 600, 38 P. 154; Mason v. Purdy, 11 Wash. 591, 40 P. 130; Smith v. Ormsby, 20 Wash. 396, 55 P. 570, 72 Am.St.Rep. 110; State ex rel. Porter v. Headlee, 18 Wash. 220, 51 P. 369; State ex rel. Dahlquist v. Van Wyck, 20 Wash. 391, 54 P. 768; American Bridge Co. v. Wheeler, 35 Wash. 40, 76 P. 534; State ex rel. Maddaugh v. Ritter, 74 Wash. 649, 134 P. 492; Beach v. Olson et al., 91 Wash. 56, 157 P. 34; Savage v. Sternberg, 19 Wash. 679, 54 P. 611, 67 Am.St.Rep. 751; Brownell v. Town of Greenwich, 114 N.Y. 518, 22 N.E. 24-27, 4 L.R.A. 685; State v. Pierce, 52 Kan. 521, 35 P. 19-22; Corning v. Meade County Commissioners, 102 F. 57, 42 C.C.A. 154; State v. Akers, 92 Kan. 169, 140 P. 637, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 543; Jerome v. Rio Grande County Commissioners (C.C.) 18 F. 873; Bank of Calif. v. Shaber, 55 Cal. 322; State v. Gandy, 12 Neb. 232, 11 N.W. 296; Bush v. Geisy, 16 Or. 355, 19 P. 123; Day v. Callow, 39 Cal. 593; Lankford v. Platte Iron Works, 235 U.S. 461, 35 Sup.Ct. 173, 59 L.Ed. 316; Rolston v. Missouri Fund Commissioners, 120 U.S. 390, 7 Sup.Ct. 599, 30 L.Ed. 721; 18 Ruling Case Law, Sec. 148; Ray v. Wilson, 29 Fla. 342, 10 So. 613, 14 L.R.A. 775; Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten, 246 F. 24, 158 C.C.A. 250, L.R.A. 1918C, 79, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 999; U.S. v. Casey (D.C.) 247 F. 362; Story v. Perkins (D.C.) 243 F. 997; McCormick v. Humphrey, 27 Ind. 144; Merchants', etc., Bank v. Union Bank, 25 La.Ann. 387; U.S. v. Casey (D.C.) 247 F. 362; Tarble's Case, 13 Wall. (80 U.S.) 397, 20 L.Ed. 597; Miller, Executor, v. U.S., 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 268-331, 20 L.Ed. 135; Jeffersonian Publishing Co. v. West (D.C.) 245 F. 585; U.S. v. Pierce (D.C.) 245 F. 878; U.S. v. Sugar (D.C.) 243 F. 423; Story v. Perkins (D.C.) 243 F. 997; U.S. v. Sugarman (D.C.) 245 F. 604; U.S. v. Stephens (D.C.) 245 F. 956;

  2. Meyer v. Porter

    65 Cal. 67 (Cal. 1884)   Cited 23 times
    In Meyer v. Porter, 65 Cal. 67 [2 P. 884], it was held that mandamus would issue to compel an officer to perform the legal duty incumbent upon him to pay interest coupons or bonds which had become due, even though other holders of like securities have not presented them for payment, or have not instituted any action to compel payment.

             The payment of the interest coupons was a duty specially enjoined by law upon the treasurer, and its performance may be enforced by mandamus. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1085; Draper v. Noteware, 7 Cal. 278; Calaveras Co. v. Brockway, 30 Cal. 326; Middleton v. Low, 30 Cal. 596; Harpending v. Haight, 39 Cal. 212; Robinson v. Supervisors of Butte Co. 43 Cal. 353; Day v. Callow, 39 Cal. 593; State v. Gandry, 12 Neb. 232; State v. Mount, 21 La. An. 352; Reynolds v. Taylor, 43 Ala. 420; People v. Brennail, 39 Barb. 536; Putnam Co. v. Allen Co. 1 Ohio St. 322; Burnet v. Auditor, 12 Ohio, 57; State v. County Auditor, 19 Ohio, 116; People v. Flagg, 17 N.Y. 584; Insane Hospital v. Higgins, 15 Ill. 185; Dillon on Mun. Corp. §§ 685-691; High on Ex. Leg. Rem. §§ 382, 387; Cooley Taxation, pp. 524, 525; Robinson v. Supervisors, 43 Cal. 353; Himmelmann v. Cofran, 36 Cal. 411; C.N.R.R. Co. v. Butte Co. 18 Cal. 671; Napa V.R.R. Co. v. Napa Co. 30 Cal. 435; Galena v. Amy, 5 Wall. 705; Supervisors v. United States, 4 Wall. 435; Memphis v. Brown, 97 U.S. 300; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136; Huff v. Knapp, 1 Seld. 65; People v. Meed, 24 N.Y. 114; Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy, 4 Wall. 535; Williamsport v. Commonw. 90 Pa. St. 498; Commonw. v. Pittsburg, 34 Pa. St. 496; 2 Met. (Ky.) 275.) There is n

  3. Babcock v. Goodrich

    47 Cal. 488 (Cal. 1874)   Cited 34 times
    Interpreting a statute limiting liability against the “aggregate” of county revenue to refer to estimated county revenue

    The right of the relator to sue the respondent for damages, is no answer to the present applition. (Fremont v. Crippen , 10 Cal. 211; People v. Loucks , 28 Cal. 68; Day v. Callow , 39 Cal. 593.)          The validity of the contract is not affected by the amount of the previous liabilities of the county, nor is it material that there was no money in the treasury to pay the account at the time it was allowed.

  4. Alden v. County of Alameda

    43 Cal. 270 (Cal. 1872)   Cited 15 times
    In Alden v. Alameda County, 43 Cal. 270, the action was on a judgment, and there was no allegation in the complaint of the presentation of a claim to the board of supervisors.

    Gen. Laws, 6993; Sharp v. Contra Costa County, 34 Cal. 284; People v. Lake County, 33 Cal. 487; Price v. Sacramento County, 6 Cal. 254; McCann v. Sierra County, 7 Cal. 121; Crandall v. Amador County, 2 Cal. 72.) If a judgment against a county be considered as an " audited claim," as intimated in the case of Sharp v. Contra Costa County, then plaintiff's remedy is by mandamus, to compel the Auditor to draw his warrant on the Treasurer, the drawing of the warrant being a ministerial duty. (Harpending v. Haight, 39 Cal. 189; Day v. Callow, 39 Cal. 593; Lake Merced Water Co. v. Cowles, 31 Cal. 215; Napa Valley R. R. Co. v. Napa Co., 30 Cal. 435; People v. Supervisors, 28 Cal. 430.) JUDGES: Crockett, J. Mr. Chief Justice Sprague did not participate in the foregoing decision.

  5. State Commission in Lunacy v. Welch

    20 Cal.App. 624 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912)   Cited 15 times

    (See Redding v. Bell, 4 Cal. 333; Bates v. Porter, 74 Cal. 224, [15 P. 732].)" See, also, Day v. Callow, 39 Cal. 593. Where an officer's duty to issue a warrant for the payment of money is dependent upon there being money in the fund applicable to the payment of the warrant, a petition that is silent upon the subject of money in the treasury is insufficient to entitle the plaintiff to a writ of mandate.