Antonelle v. Board of New City Hall Commissioners

28 P. 270, 92 Cal. 228, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 1202
California Supreme Court·Decided December 11, 1891·No. No. 13815·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

McFarland, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court, in a proceeding in mandamus, commanding the board of new city hall commissioners to allow a certain demand of respondents payable out of the new city hall fund. The transcript consists merely of the pleadings, the judgment, and a notice of appeal therefrom. The case was tried without a jury, and findings were waived. The complaint (or petition) states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and to authorize the issuance of the writ prayed for, and was attacked only by a general demurrer. All the issues made by the pleadings are presumed to have been found in favor of the petitioners. We are unable, therefore, to see any opening for an attack on the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

De Haven, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Antonelle v. Board of New City Hall Commissioners, 28 P. 270, 92 Cal. 228, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 1202 (Cal. 1891).

28 P. 270 (Antonelle v. Board of New City Hall Commissioners) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

O'CONNOR v. Skelton
201 Cal. App. 2d 620 (California Court of Appeal, 1962)
Moreno Mutual Irrigation Co. v. Beaumont Irrigation District
211 P.2d 928 (California Court of Appeal, 1949)
Childers v. Childers
168 P.2d 218 (California Court of Appeal, 1946)
Smith v. McKinstry
158 P.2d 262 (California Court of Appeal, 1945)
Stewart v. Langer
48 P.2d 758 (California Court of Appeal, 1935)
Green v. Darling
239 P. 70 (California Court of Appeal, 1925)
Gray v. Gray
197 P. 945 (California Supreme Court, 1921)