Page images

mandamus to satisfy warrants surrendered for redemption, as provided by law. Day v. Callow, 39 Cal. 593; People v. Swift, 31 Cal. 29; Freehill v. Chamberlain, 65 Cal. 603; Jones v. Morgan, 67 Cal. 308.

The legislature has the constitutional power to pass an act requiring boards of supervisors of counties to issue and sell county bonds for the purpose of raising money to improve roads in a county, and the people of the state, without a relator, may bring an action to compel, by writ of mandate, the board of supervisors to do the same. People v. Board of Supervisors, 50 Cal. 561; Santa Cruz R. R. Co. v. Board of Supervisors, 62 Cal. 239.

If an official duty is to be performed by an officer on the happening of an event, he cannot capriciously refuse to perform it on the plea that he is not satisfied that it has happened. If the fact exists and is established by proof, it is his legal duty to be satisfied and perform the act, and if he refuses, mandamus will lie. Stockton R. R. Co. v. Stockton, 51 Cal. 329.

If a board of supervisors of a county refuse to act on a claini against the county presented to them, for the reason that they have not the power to approve of it, mandamus is the proper action to determine whether they possess such power. People v. Board of Supervisors, 28 Cal. 430.

Where the provisions of a municipal charter make it the duty of the treasurer to pay the interest of certain bonds when the same falls due out of a fund provided for that purpose, such payment is a duty specially enjoined by law upon the officer, and may be enforced by mandamus. Meyer v. Porter, 65 Cal. 67.

Mandamus will lie to compel the auditor to enter in his books an increase of the assessments by adding a percentage in accordance with the direction of the state board of equal. ization. People v. Strother, 67 Cal. 624.

Where it is clearly the duty of the board of election commissioners to call and hold an election, performance of such duty cannot be refused on the ground that there may not be sufficient funds in the treasury to defray the expenses. • Gibbs v. Bartlett, 63 Cal. 117.

If the tax collector fails to make a deed which complies with the law, it would seem that he can be compelled by mandamus to make proper deed. Grimm v. O'Connell, 54 Cal. 522.

A board of supervisors has no authority to cancel an assessment of property made by the assessor and placed by him on the assessment book, and if the board make such an order it is void. People v. Ashbury, 44 Cal, 616; People v. Board of Supervisors, 44 Cal. 613.

The auditor, in making a copy of the assessment book for the tax collector, cannot review or correct the errors of the board of supervisors while acting within the sphere of their authority, still he must disregard any order of the board which it has no jurisdiction to make. People v. Ashbury, 44 Cal. 616.

A writ of mandate does not lie to command

a person to perform an act beyond that enjoined by law upon him as a duty pertaining to his office or position. Davis v. Porter, 66 Cal. 658.

In default of action by the board of supervisors, the auditor cannot fix the salary at the minimum provided in the code. The law does not authorize him to draw his warrant for the payment of a salary which has not been fixed by the supervisors, or by law. Peachy v. Redmond, 59 Cal. 326.

If a contract entered into on behalf of a county is unauthorized by law and void, a warrant drawn by the auditor on the treasurer, in pursuance of an order of the board of supervisors, for work performed under the contract, is also unauthorized and void, and the treasurer cannot be compelled to pay the same. Perry v. Ames, 26 Cal. 372.

Mandamus is not the proper remedy for the enforcement of a claim against a county, which has been presented to the board of supervisors of the county and rejected. Such writ belongs only to such as have legal rights to enforce, and find

themselves without an appropriate legal remedy. To authorize mandamus, it must appear not only that the performance of the act to enforce which the writ is asked, is a duty resulting from the office, trust or station of the board or officer to whom the writ is to be directed, but that the performance has been requested and refused. Crandall v. Amador County, 20 Cal. 73.

Mandamus does not lie to compel the board of supervisors to order a special election to fill vacancies in the offices of assessor and sheriff. Packard v. Board of Supervisors, 14 Cal. 102.

If, in an application for a writ of mandate, to compel a county treasurer to pay money, such treasurer stipulates as to the facts, without the advice of counsel, and no attorney appears for him, the court will order the proceeding to be stayed until a copy of the record is served on the district attorney and chairman of the board of supervisors. Uhler v. Boyd, 41 Cal. 60.

If an office is filled, de facto, a writ of mandate does not lie for ths purpose of trying the title to it. Meredith v. Board of Supervisors, 50 Cal. 433.

Mandamus will not lie to compel a sheriff to issue a certificate and deed to a purchaser at a sale for taxes under an invalid assessment, nor where the petition does not aver that there was an assessment and levy for taxes, and that the same were unpaid. Bosworth v.

Webster, 64 Cal. 1. Mandamus will not lie to compel board of supervisors to act upon a claim presented to them, but not made out in accordance with law in not specifying the items thereof. Christie v. Board of Supervisors, 60 Cal. 164.

The record of the supervisors is under the control of the board, and mandamus will not lie to the clerk to compel him to correct the records. Wigginton v. Markley, 52 Cal. 411.

A county treasurer cannot be compelled by mandamus to pay on warrants, made payable out of a particular fund, more money than there is in that fund at the time the mandate is issued. Day v. Callow, 39 Cal. 593.

If a county is compelled by law to subscribe to the stock of a corporation, the corporation must tender its books to the officers of the county and demand the subscription before it can apply for a writ of mandate. Oroville & V. R. R. v. Board of Supervisors, 37 Cal. 354.

It is an imperative rule, that before making application for a writ of mandate, an express demand or request must be made on the defendant to perform the act sought to be enforced by the writ; and the demand should be definite and specific. Price v. Riverside L. & I. Co., 56 Cal. 431.

PROHIBITION. SEC. 1102. The writ of prohibition is the counterpart of the writ of mandate. It arrests the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board or person, whether exercising functions judicial or ministerial, when such proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board, or person.

SEC. 1103. It may be issued by any court except police or justice's courts, to an inferior tribunal, or to a corporation, board or person, in all cases where there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It is issued upon affidavit, on the application of the person beneficially interested.

Where a board of supervisors had ordered an election on the question of removing the county seat upon an insuflicient petition for

« PreviousContinue »