Murphy v. Bantel

California Court of Appeal

Murphy v. Bantel

91 P. 805, 6 Cal. App. 215, 1907 Cal. App. LEXIS 160

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedAugust 13, 1907

DocketCiv. No. 437.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 91 P. 805 (Murphy v. Bantel) 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

Murphy v. Bantel, 91 P. 805, 6 Cal. App. 215, 1907 Cal. App. LEXIS 160 (Cal. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

COOPER, P. J.

The petitioner as a taxpayer asks for a writ of prohibition directed to Charles A. Bantel, as treasurer of the city and county of San Francisco, to prohibit him from paying a bill incurred by one W. J. Biggy, elisor of the superior court, amounting to the sum of $1,092, for the care, custody and maintenance of one Abraham Ruef for the month of July, 1907, which bill has been approved by Hon. Frank H. Dunne, one of the judges of the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, and ordered paid by said judge.

The writ of prohibition arrests the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board or person when such proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board or person, and there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 1102, 1103.) The said Bantel, as treasurer of the city and county of San Francisco, would not be proceeding in excess of his jurisdiction in paying a bill which has been incurred or approved by the judge of the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco. The writ of prohibition will not lie in such case, even if it be conceded that the bill is illegal or not authorized by law. In such case the taxpayer has a remedy by proceeding in the superior court under the process of injunction to restrain the payment. This remedy is one of frequent occurrence in our courts, but we know of no practice authorizing any court to prohibit the payment of a claim, except by injunction, even although the claim may be illegal.

The writ is denied. '

Hall, J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.

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

COOPER, P. J.

The petitioner as a taxpayer asks for a writ of prohibition directed to Charles A. Bantel, as treasurer of the city and county of San Francisco, to prohibit him from paying a bill incurred by one W. J. Biggy, elisor of the superior court, amounting to the sum of $1,092, for the care, custody and maintenance of one Abraham Ruef for the month of July, 1907, which bill has been approved by Hon. Frank H. Dunne, one of the judges of the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, and ordered paid by said judge.

The writ of prohibition arrests the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board or person when such proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board or person, and there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 1102, 1103.) The said Bantel, as treasurer of the city and county of San Francisco, would not be proceeding in excess of his jurisdiction in paying a bill which has been incurred or approved by the judge of the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco. The writ of prohibition will not lie in such case, even if it be conceded that the bill is illegal or not authorized by law. In such case the taxpayer has a remedy by proceeding in the superior court under the process of injunction to restrain the payment. This remedy is one of frequent occurrence in our courts, but we know of no practice authorizing any court to prohibit the payment of a claim, except by injunction, even although the claim may be illegal.

The writ is denied. '

Hall, J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 P. 805, 6 Cal. App. 215, 1907 Cal. App. LEXIS 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-bantel-calctapp-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack