County of Los Angeles v. Daniels

California Court of Appeal

County of Los Angeles v. Daniels

222 P.2d 157, 222 P. 157, 64 Cal. App. 790

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 31, 1923

DocketCiv. No. 2546.

StatusPublished

This text of 222 P.2d 157 (County of Los Angeles v. Daniels) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

County of Los Angeles v. Daniels, 222 P.2d 157, 222 P. 157, 64 Cal. App. 790 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an action praying for the issuance of a writ of mandate requiring the board of control to audit and allow the claim of the County of Los Angeles for the sum of $12,963.48. The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrer to the petitioner's petition without leave to amend. The matter is now before this court on appeal from the judgment entered after the sustaining of the respondents' demurrer as aforesaid. The same questions are involved in this action as were presented for determination in the case of County of Los Angeles v. State,ante, p. 291. [222 P. 153]. For the reasons therein given, we think the writ of mandate was properly denied, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

Finch, P. J., and Hart, J., concurred. *Page 791

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

This is an action praying for the issuance of a writ of mandate requiring the board of control to audit and allow the claim of the County of Los Angeles for the sum of $12,963.48. The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrer to the petitioner's petition without leave to amend. The matter is now before this court on appeal from the judgment entered after the sustaining of the respondents' demurrer as aforesaid. The same questions are involved in this action as were presented for determination in the case of County of Los Angeles v. State,ante, p. 291. [222 P. 153]. For the reasons therein given, we think the writ of mandate was properly denied, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

Finch, P. J., and Hart, J., concurred. *Page 791

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 P.2d 157, 222 P. 157, 64 Cal. App. 790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/county-of-los-angeles-v-daniels-calctapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack