Bates v. Porter

15 P. 732, 74 Cal. 224, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 773
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 1, 1887
DocketNo. 11575
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 15 P. 732 (Bates v. Porter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bates v. Porter, 15 P. 732, 74 Cal. 224, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 773 (Cal. 1887).

Opinions

Thornton, J.

This is an application for a writ of mandate to command the respondent to set apart and appropriate to a fund known as the sinking fund fifty-five per cent of all moneys received by him, collected for water rents in the city of Sacramento.

It is urged on behalf of respondent that the treasurer is bound to set apart the net receipts of the moneys above mentioned; that is, what remains of such receipts after deducting therefrom various items of expense in cónducting the water-works, including salaries of its officers and employees. The contention of appellant is, that the respondent is bound to set apart the gross receipts, without deducting anything.

"We are of opinion that the contention of appellant is sustained by the law, which we shall proceed to show.

The city of Sacramento was incorporated by an act passed on the 27th of February, 1850. (See Stats. 1850, p. 70.) This act is referred to in the opinion in the case of Meyer v. Brown, 65 Cal. 583, and some of the features of the organization of the city are there detailed. (See 65 Cal. 584.) This act was amended as to the fifth and twentieth sections, at the same session of the legislature, [226]*226by an act passed on the 26th of March, 1850. (Stats. 1850, p. 96.) By an act passed in 1851 (Stats. 1851, p. 391), which became a law by permission of the governor, who neither approved nor vetoed the bill, a new act of incorporation was enacted. This act repealed the former acts above mentioned. (Sec. 44, Act of 1851, p. 401.) The act of 1851 was modified by the act of April 28,1852 (see Stats. 1852, p. 190), by amending the seventh and sixteenth sections thereof. On May 3,1852 (Stats. 1852, p. 196), an act was passed authorizing the mayor and common council of the city to contract, by special ordinance, in such manner as they might choose, with any association, person, or persons, to supply the said city with water, the act declaring that “ any contract or contracts so made and entered into shall be valid and binding in law.” The act of 1851 above mentioned was again ■amended in 1855 by the act of the 31st of March. (Stats. 1855, p. 63.) By section 9 of this act the common council ■was empowered, on their first meeting after a general election, or as soon thereafter as the same could conveniently •be done, to appoint, in such manner as the council might prescribe, the following officers, inter alios, to serve during the pleasure of the council, to wit: one superintendent iof water-works, and one engineer of water-works, the .salary of the latter officer not to exceed one hundred and fifty dollars per month. By section 4 of this act, amending section 30 of the act of 1851, the salary of the superintendent of the water-works was fixed at two thousand dollars per annum. (Stats. 1855, p. 64.) By section 12, provision was made for the collection of water rents by the city collector, with power in the common council, by ordinance, to require the superintendent of the waterworks to collect the water revenue. (Stats. 1855, p. 66.) The powers conferred in the act of incorporation of the city on the city council (see act of 1851, sec. 7, Stats. 1851, p. 393, and the amendatory act of 1852, p. 195, amending section 7 of the act of 1851), and the act of [227]*227May S, 1852, above stated, confer ample power on the authorities of the city of Sacramento to erect and maintain water-works, and to charge and collect water rents.

Frequent references in subsequent acts of the legislature are made to the water-works as existing and the revenue arising therefrom in the shape of water rents. These may be found by examining the statutes. On the point of authority in the city authorities in the matter of erecting and maintaining the works above mentioned and to collect water rents, therefore, it is unnecessary to make more particular reference to these enactments. All the statutes affecting the city and county of Sacramento may be found mentioned in 2 Hittell’s General Laws, pp. 970-972.

Early in its existence the city became indebted. It had power to borrow money which it had used for purposes not improper, and it had creditors who, as is usually the case, demanded payment. Provision was made by the legislature empowering the city to fund its indebtedness, and to issue bonds therefor. The legislation on this subject, so far as regards the case in hand (for the action here was brought by a creditor and bondholder of the city), will be referred to in the further progress of this opinion.

The main question in this case turns upon the construction of the act of April 24, 1858. (Stats. 1858, p. 267.)

This act is entitled “An act to repeal the act passed March 26, 1851, entitled, ‘An act to incorporate the city of Sacramento,’ and the several acts amendatory and supplementary thereto, and to incorporate the city and county of Sacramento.”

By its first section, the city and county of Sacramento was consolidated; and for the government of the territory, then known as the city and county of Sacramento, there was created a board of supervisors, and this board of supervisors and their successors in office it was [228]*228declared should be a body politic and corporate, under the name and style of “ The City and County of Sacramento,” and by that name shall be known in law. It was in the same section invested with extensive powers.

It was further provided in the same section that “ the city and county shall not be sued in any action whatever, nor any of its lands, buildings, improvements, property, franchises, taxes, revenues, actions, choses in action, and effects, be subject to attachment, levy, or sale, or any process whatever, either mesne or final.”

By the second section of this act, the corporation constituted by it was made the successor of the corporation by this act dissolved, and heretofore known as “The Mayor and Common Council of the City of Sacramento.” It was declared to be the owner of all the property, actions, rights of action, moneys, revenues, income, and trusts at that time vested in or belonging or in any wise appertaining to the corporation known as “ The Mayor and Common Council of the City of Sacramento.”

The act of 1858 contains, inter alios, the following sections:—

“ Sec. 12. The treasurer of said city and county shall receive and safely keep in a secure, fire-proof vault, to be prepared for the purpose, all moneys belonging to or which shall be paid into the treasury, and shall not loan, use, or deposit the same, or any part thereof, with any banker or other person, nor pay out any part of said moneys, except upon demands authorized by law, and after they have been duly audited and ordered paid. He shall keep the key of said vault, and not suffer the same to be opened except in his presence. At the closing up of the same each day, he shall take an account, and enter in the proper book the exact amount of money on hand; and at the end of every month he shall make and publish a statement, in one of the daily papers published in the city of Sacramento, of all receipts into and payments from the treasury, and on what account. If he [229]

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

Related

Denver Center for the Performing Arts v. Briggs
696 P.2d 299 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1985)
Opinion No. 22-82 (1982)
Missouri Attorney General Reports, 1982
Gragg v. Cayuga Independent School District
539 S.W.2d 861 (Texas Supreme Court, 1976)
G. H. McShane Co. v. McFadden
414 F. Supp. 720 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1976)
Opinion of the Justices
47 So. 2d 729 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1950)
Kohn v. Kohn
214 P.2d 71 (California Court of Appeal, 1950)
Willoughby v. Willoughby
19 A.2d 857 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1941)
First Trust Co. v. Commonwealth Co.
98 F.2d 27 (Eighth Circuit, 1938)
Eaid v. National Casualty Co.
259 P. 902 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1927)
Bank of Chatsworth v. Hagedorn Construction Co.
119 S.E. 28 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1923)
Pippin v. State ex rel. Town of Blountstown
74 So. 653 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1917)
Blount v. MacDonald
155 P. 736 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1916)
State ex rel. Gass v. Gordon
181 S.W. 1016 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1915)
Niland v. Niland
143 N.W. 170 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1913)
State Commission in Lunacy v. Welch
129 P. 974 (California Court of Appeal, 1912)
Goodwin v. McGaughey
122 N.W. 6 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1909)
Los Angeles City Water Co. v. City of Los Angeles
103 F. 711 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California, 1900)
Kendall v. Porter
45 P. 333 (California Supreme Court, 1898)
State ex rel. Thayer v. Mish
43 P. 40 (Washington Supreme Court, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 P. 732, 74 Cal. 224, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bates-v-porter-cal-1887.