Meyer v. City of San Diego

California Supreme Court

Meyer v. City of San Diego

121 Cal. 113

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMay 31, 1898

DocketL. A. Nos. 333, 373

StatusPublished

This text of 121 Cal. 113 (Meyer v. City of San Diego) 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

Meyer v. City of San Diego, 121 Cal. 113 (Cal. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

These are appeals in the consolidated action brought to enjoin the issuance of certain municipal bonds of the city of San Diego, and to annul a contract which had been entered into by the city with the Southern California Mountain Water Company, a corporation.

It has been this day decided in Albert Meyer et al. v. City of San Diego et al., ante, p. 102, that the trial judge was disqualified by interest, and that the motion made for a change of venue should have been granted. And the order denying a change of venue was therefore reversed.

It may be regretted that the expense and labor necessarily incurred in the preparation and presentation of these appeals should thus be wasted, but as, under the circumstances, the judgment rendered is of no force or validity, the questions cannot be considered upon their merits, and naught remains but to reverse the judgment.

The judgment and order are reversed and the cause remanded.

Behearing denied.

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

THE COURT.

These are appeals in the consolidated action brought to enjoin the issuance of certain municipal bonds of the city of San Diego, and to annul a contract which had been entered into by the city with the Southern California Mountain Water Company, a corporation.

It has been this day decided in Albert Meyer et al. v. City of San Diego et al., ante, p. 102, that the trial judge was disqualified by interest, and that the motion made for a change of venue should have been granted. And the order denying a change of venue was therefore reversed.

It may be regretted that the expense and labor necessarily incurred in the preparation and presentation of these appeals should thus be wasted, but as, under the circumstances, the judgment rendered is of no force or validity, the questions cannot be considered upon their merits, and naught remains but to reverse the judgment.

The judgment and order are reversed and the cause remanded.

Behearing denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 Cal. 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyer-v-city-of-san-diego-cal-1898.