From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gibbs v. Bartlett

Supreme Court of California
Feb 2, 1883
63 Cal. 117 (Cal. 1883)

Summary

In Gibbs v. Bartlett, 63 Cal. 117, 118, this court held that when the duty to hold a special election is enjoined by law, performance of the duty cannot be refused upon the ground that there may not be sufficient funds in the treasury to defray the expenses of the election.

Summary of this case from Jenkins v. Knight

Opinion

         THE petitioner prayed for a writ of mandate to compel the defendants, as members of the board of election commissioners of the city and county of San Francisco, to provide for, call, and hold a special election for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of that city and county the question of ratifying a charter for its government, prepared and proposed by a board of fifteen freeholders, as provided by art. 11, § 8, of the Constitution.

         The defendants denied that it was their duty to provide for, call, and hold such an election, and alleged specifically as a reason for their refusal that it would necessitate a large expenditure of money from the general fund of the city and county, and that there was not and would not be any money in such fund during the then fiscal year with which to defray such expenses.

         COUNSEL:

         John F. Swift, and Russell J. Wilson, for Petitioner.

         Wm. Craig, for Respondents.


         OPINION

         In Bank

         PER CURIAM.

         The duties sought to be enforced on the part of the respondents are clearly enjoined by law. Performance of these duties cannot be refused on the ground set up by respondents, to wit, that there may not be sufficient funds in the treasury to defray the expenses of the election.

         Let the writ issue as prayed.


Summaries of

Gibbs v. Bartlett

Supreme Court of California
Feb 2, 1883
63 Cal. 117 (Cal. 1883)

In Gibbs v. Bartlett, 63 Cal. 117, 118, this court held that when the duty to hold a special election is enjoined by law, performance of the duty cannot be refused upon the ground that there may not be sufficient funds in the treasury to defray the expenses of the election.

Summary of this case from Jenkins v. Knight
Case details for

Gibbs v. Bartlett

Case Details

Full title:F. A. GIBBS, PETITIONER, v. WASHINGTON BARTLETT ET AL., RESPONDENTS

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Feb 2, 1883

Citations

63 Cal. 117 (Cal. 1883)

Citing Cases

Jenkins v. Knight

[9] In related cases where officers enjoined by law to call a special election failed to act, it has been…

Yett v. Cook

Sansom v. Mercer, 68 Tex. 488; Kimberly v. Morris, 87 Tex. 637; Kimberly v. Morris, (Civ. Apps.) 31 S.W. 809;…