Hammond

Hammond v. City of Burbank

Good Law
1936 Cal. LEXIS 568·6 Cal. 2d 646·59 P.2d 495
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 30, 1936L. A. 15223California6,459 words

Opinion

Opinion

Shenk, J.

Petitioner Hammond and other holders of improvement district bonds which are all past due and payable, seek by this proceeding in mandamus to compel the city authorities to levy and collect a special tax on all of the taxable property of the city, and to pay the proceeds thereof into certain bond redemption funds, so that the principal and interest due on petitioners’ bonds may be paid in full. The matter is submitted on the petition and two returns to the alternative writ, and on a stipulation of the facts. There is also a motion to quash. This proceeding requires a further interpretation of the provisions of the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Stats. 1915, p. 1441, as amended), and particularly of sections 12 and 16 (a) thereof. These sections have recently been the source of much litigation, and many of the problems herein presented have been passed upon in the cases of American Co. v. City of Lakeport, 220 Cal. 548 [ 32 Pac. (2d) 622 ] ; Union Safe Deposit Bank v. City of Menlo Park, 3 Cal. (2d) 264 [ 43 Pac. (2d) 811 ]; Southern California Roads Co. v. County of San Luis Obispo, 4 Cal. (2d) 220 [ 48 Pac. (2d) 34 ]; Griffith Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 4 Cal. (2d) 222 [48 Pac.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.