McClure

McClure v. Nye

Good Law
1913 Cal. App. LEXIS 26·22 Cal. App. 248·133 P. 1145
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 7, 1913Civ. No. 1149, Civ. No. 1150.California2,405 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Burnett, J.

We have before us two separate appliea tions for writ of mandate to require the state controller to draw and issue his warrant upon the state treasurer in favor of petitioners for several claims presented in pursuance of certain acts of the legislature. These legislative acts are set forth in the petitions and the two cases were heard together and will be considered in one opinion. A general demurrer was filed to each petition and, as the matter is thus presented, only one question needs to be discussed as that is decisive of the whole controversy. That question is whether, under the constitutional provision hereafter to be noticed, any of these claims must or can be paid or a warrant drawn therefor at any time prior to ninety days after the adjournment of the legislature. That provision is found in section 1 of article IV, adopted by the people October 10, 1911, and reads as follows: “No act passed by the legislature shall go into effect until ninety days after the final adjournment of the session of the legislature which passed such act, except acts calling elections, acts providing for tax levies or appropriations for the usual current expenses of the state, and urgency…

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.