Santa Ana H. S. Dist. v. Talbert

California Court of Appeal

Santa Ana H. S. Dist. v. Talbert

124 P. 874, 19 Cal. App. 108

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 17, 1912

DocketCiv. No. 1157.

StatusPublished

This text of 124 P. 874 (Santa Ana H. S. Dist. v. Talbert) 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

Santa Ana H. S. Dist. v. Talbert, 124 P. 874, 19 Cal. App. 108 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

The facts and questions presented in this application for writ of mandate are identical with those stated in our opinion in the case of Santa Ana School District of *Page 109 Orange County, California, et al. v. T. B. Talbert, Chairman,etc., Civil No. 1156, ante, p. 104, [124 P. 872], this day filed, with one exception, namely, that the objectionable clause is not preceded by the word "and." In other words, after the legitimate and particular purposes are specified, there is appended thereto the statement "to afford better facilities," etc. This, to our minds, is a clear expression of a conclusion as distinguished from the statement of a purpose, and its insertion in the resolution of the board does not render invalid the bonds sought to be issued in such proceeding.

Writ granted.

James, J., and Shaw, J., concurred.

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

The facts and questions presented in this application for writ of mandate are identical with those stated in our opinion in the case of Santa Ana School District of *Page 109 Orange County, California, et al. v. T. B. Talbert, Chairman,etc., Civil No. 1156, ante, p. 104, [124 P. 872], this day filed, with one exception, namely, that the objectionable clause is not preceded by the word "and." In other words, after the legitimate and particular purposes are specified, there is appended thereto the statement "to afford better facilities," etc. This, to our minds, is a clear expression of a conclusion as distinguished from the statement of a purpose, and its insertion in the resolution of the board does not render invalid the bonds sought to be issued in such proceeding.

Writ granted.

James, J., and Shaw, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 P. 874, 19 Cal. App. 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santa-ana-h-s-dist-v-talbert-calctapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack