Wilde

Sam Kee v. Wilde

Good Law
1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 351·41 Cal. App. 528·183 P. 164
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 10, 1919Civ. No. 2890.California2,135 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Thomas, J.

These appeals are from judgments of the superior court of Los Angeles County on- the judgment-rolls alone, ordering that peremptory writs of mandate issue commanding the city clerk of the city of Los Angeles to prepare and issue to the respective petitioners a license to conduct a laundry within a portion of the city set apart as a residence district. The issues are the same in both cases, and the pleadings, findings, and judgment are identical, save as to the name of the petitioner and the street address of his laundry. By stipulation, it is agreed that these two cases “may be presented, heard, and determined upon the same transcript and brief.” The judgment-roll, accordingly, has been omitted from the transcript in the Hop Wah ease.

The appellant has stated the case so well in his brief that we feel that we can do no better than to adopt his language as our statement of the case. This we do. It appears from the record before us that “the petition avers that respondent Charles L. Wilde is the city clerk, A. B. Conrad the city tax and license collector, and John S. Myers the city auditor of the city of Los Angeles, and their respective duties as prescribed by the charter are set…

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.