Morgan

I concur. I would say, however, that I do not agree with the assumption of the main opinion based on isolated language from the opinion in Civic Center Assn. v. Railroad Commission, 175 Cal. 441 , [ 166 P. 351 ], that a general law in regard to municipal affairs is not operative in Los Angeles or any other similarly chartered city unless picked up by the city charter and affirmatively made a part of the municipal law of the city. Such is not, in my judgment, the effect of section 6 of article XI of our constitution, as amended in 1914. The section as it originally read provided that all municipal charters should be subject to and controlled by general laws. Under this reading it was held that in case of any conflict *Page 314 between the provisions of a city charter and a general law the latter should prevail. To obviate this the section was amended in 1896 so as to provide that city charters should be subject to and controlled by general laws except in municipal affairs. The result was that thereafter, in case of conflict between charter provisions and a general law, the former prevailed. The amendment, however, affected only cases of conflict between charters and general laws.…

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the defendants upon an order of the trial court sustaining, without leave to amend, a general demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint, and to the complaint in intervention filed by permission of the court, in an action brought by the plaintiff, as a taxpayer, to obtain a judgment that a certain bond issue of the city of Los Angeles amounting to four million five hundred thousand dollars was unauthorized, invalid, and void, and to restrain the city and its officers from issuing such bonds or expending any part of the proceeds thereof for any purpose. Both the plaintiff and the intervener have appealed, and by stipulation the record on both appeals is brought before the court in a single transcript. The material facts as alleged in the plaintiff's complaint are as follows: Proceedings were instituted by the city of Los Angeles to incur a bonded indebtedness of four million five hundred thousand dollars for certain municipal improvements, to wit: The acquisition, construction, and completion of docks, wharves, and other harbor improvements in the city of Los Angeles. A resolution declaring the necessity for such improvement was…