TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

City & County of San Francisco v. Dunn

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO v. JOHN P. DUNN, State Controller

City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Dunn, 10 P. 191 (Cal. 1886)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 9, 1886
Docket
No. 11362
Judges
Myrick
Citations
10 P. 19169 Cal. 731886 Cal. LEXIS 629
Syllabus
Aged Persons in Indigent Circumstances — Appropriation por Support op—San Francisco Almshouse.—Upon the passage of the act of Maz-ch 15, 1883, znaking an appropriation of money for the support of aged persons in indigent circumstances in certain private institutions, the city and county of San Francisco, under section 22 of article 4'of the constitution, without any further legislative action, became entitled to receive from the state a pro rata appropriation for the support of aged persons in indigent circumstances in the city and county almshouse.
Summary
Application for a writ of mandate to compel the respondent to draw a warrant in favor of the petitioner, for the support of certain aged persons in indigent circumstances in the city and county almshouse, a public institution conducted by it for the support of such persons. The further 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 — Myrick

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

Myrick, J.

This is an application for a writ of mandate compelling the respondent to draw his warrant upon the state treasurer for an amount allowed by the board of examiners on petitioner’s behalf, for the support and maintenance of aged persons in indigent circumstances.

The first and second provisos of section 22, article 4, of the constitution, have reference to institutions of a private character as distinguished from public institutions; and after authorizing state aid to such institutions, the section proceeds to declare, in the third proviso, that whenever any county, city and county, city, or town shall provide for the support of aged persons in indigent circumstances (and others named), such county, city and county, city, or town shall be entitled to receive the same pro rata appropriation as may be granted to the institutions referred to in the first and second provisos. By the act of March 15, 1883 (Stats. 1883, p. 380), the legislature granted aid to the institutions referred to in the first and second provisos, and appropriated $100 per annum to each person supported and maintained in such institutions. Such appropriation having been made, the third proviso became self-executing as to counties, cities and counties, cities, and towns; and no further legislative action was required. This proviso is a portion of the section which declares that no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law, and qualifies that declaration; it acts of itself as an appropriation upon the other appropriation being made. The evident intent of the constitution is to vest in the legislature the discretion to grant state aid to institutions for support of orphans and indigent aged persons; and upon the exercise of that discretion to appropriate to the aid of counties, cities and counties, cities, and towns, for similar purposes, pro rata amounts. *75 The demurrer of petitioner to the answer of respondent is sustained. In pursuance of the stipulation of the parties, dependent upon the ruling on demurrer, it is ordered that the writ issue as prayed for.

Ross, J., Sharpstein, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1888: 11895: 11896: 11899: 12002: 218882026peak 2002 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. White v. Davis37 P.3d 647 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)
  2. White v. Davis133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 691 (2002)
  3. Ingram v. Colgan39 P. 437 (Cal. 1895)
  4. State ex rel. Hawes v. Mason54 S.W. 524 (Mo. 1899)
  5. County of Orange v. County of Los Angeles46 P. 173 (Cal. 1896)
  6. County of Yolo v. Dunn19 P. 262 (Cal. 1888)

Most recent

  1. White v. Davis37 P.3d 647 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)
  2. White v. Davis133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 691 (2002)
  3. State ex rel. Hawes v. Mason54 S.W. 524 (Mo. 1899)
  4. County of Orange v. County of Los Angeles46 P. 173 (Cal. 1896)
  5. Ingram v. Colgan39 P. 437 (Cal. 1895)
  6. County of Yolo v. Dunn19 P. 262 (Cal. 1888)

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