TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Scheerer v. Edgar

JOSEPH SCHEERER v. W. M. EDGAR, Auditor of the City and County of San Francisco

Scheerer v. Edgar, 7 P. 760 (Cal. 1885)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
August 26, 1885
Docket
No. 11032
Judges
Ross
Citations
7 P. 76067 Cal. 3771885 Cal. LEXIS 649
Syllabus
Mandamus against County Auditor—Defendant Acting Officially—Appeal —Undertaking may be Dispensed with. — In proceedings by mandamus against the auditor of the city and county of San Francisco, the defendant acts officially, and on an appeal Ixy him, the undertaking provided for by section 916 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be dispensed with.
Summary
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Ross

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Ross, J.

This is an appeal taken .by the defendant from a judgment of the Superior Court directing a writ of mandate to issue compelling the defendant, as auditor of the city and county of San Francisco, to issue to the plaintiff a warrant upon the treasurer of the city and county for the payment of a certain sum of money. The court below, by an order made, dispensed with an undertaking on appeal on the part of the appellant, by virtue of that portion of section 946 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that “ the court below may, in its discretion, dispense with or limit the security required by this chapter, when the appellant is an executor, administrator, trustee, or other person acting in another’s right.”

In taking the appeal the defendant was not acting in his individual capacity, for in that capacity he was not a party to the proceeding. He was proceeded against iu his official capacity as auditor; it was against him as auditor that the judgment went in the court below, and in that capacity only could he appeal. He was hot acting therefore in his own individual *378 right, but in that of the city and county. The case therefore falls within the provision of the Code of Procedure cited, and the motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore denied.

Morrison, C. J., McKinstry, J., Thornton, J., Myrick, J., and McKee, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1893: 11897: 11943: 11958: 118932026peak 1893 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gayer v. Whelan141 P.2d 514 (Cal. Ct. App. 1943)
  2. Von Schmidt v. Widber34 P. 109 (Cal. 1893)
  3. Maurice L. Bein, Inc. v. Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles321 P.2d 753 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958)
  4. Lamberson v. Jefferds48 P. 485 (Cal. 1897)

Most recent

  1. Maurice L. Bein, Inc. v. Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles321 P.2d 753 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958)
  2. Gayer v. Whelan141 P.2d 514 (Cal. Ct. App. 1943)
  3. Lamberson v. Jefferds48 P. 485 (Cal. 1897)
  4. Von Schmidt v. Widber34 P. 109 (Cal. 1893)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list