From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilson v. Rolph

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two
Jul 11, 1922
58 Cal.App. 786 (Cal. Ct. App. 1922)

Opinion

Civ. No. 4317.

July 11, 1922.

PROCEEDING in Mandamus to require the levy and collection of a tax sufficient to pay a judgment against a municipality. Writ granted.

The facts are the same as those stated in the opinion in Oscar Heyman Brother (a Corporation) v. Edwin C. Bath et al., ante, p. 499.

Keyes Erskine for Petitioners.

George Lull, City Attorney, and Maurice T. Dooling, Jr., Assistant City Attorney, for Respondents.


[1] Let a peremptory writ issue as prayed on the authority of Oscar Heyman Brother (a Corporation) v. Edwin C. Bath et al., ante, p. 499 [ 208 P. 981].

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on September 7, 1922.

All the Justices present concurred.

Richards, J., pro tem., and Myers, J., pro tem., were acting.


Summaries of

Wilson v. Rolph

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two
Jul 11, 1922
58 Cal.App. 786 (Cal. Ct. App. 1922)
Case details for

Wilson v. Rolph

Case Details

Full title:FREDERICK A. WILSON et al., Petitioners, v. JAMES ROLPH, Jr., et al.…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two

Date published: Jul 11, 1922

Citations

58 Cal.App. 786 (Cal. Ct. App. 1922)
208 P. 981