Application to the Supreme Court for writ of mandate.

The Legislature passed the following Act, which was approved by the Governor, March 28tli, 1863 :

“An Act to authorize the Board of Supervisors of Sonoma County to appropriate Money for a Map.-

“ The people of the State of California, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:

“ Section 1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma are hereby authorized and empowered, and it is hereby made their duty to contract with A. B. Bowers for the completion and publication of his map of said county, and to pay for the same the sum of five thousand dollars, on or before the delivery to them of twenty copies of the aforesaid map.

“ Sec. 2. This Act shall take effect immediately.”

The petition set forth that immediately after the passage of said Act, and in pursuance of its provisions, the petitioner, Bowers, commenced the compilation of a map, and on the 8th day of November, 1866, said map was completed and published in pursuance of said Act. That on the 14th day of November, 1866, he tendered to said Board twenty copies of said map, and then and there demanded of said Board that they should contract with him for the publication of his map of said county for the sum of five thousand dollars, and that they should receive the said twenty copies tendered as aforesaid, and order a warrant drawn on the Treasurer of said county in favor of the said A. C. Sweetser, for said sum of five thousand dollars, in accordance with the directions and provisions of said Act, in full satisfaction and discharge of his claims and demands thereunder. That on the 20th day of June, 1865, for a good and valuable consideration, to wit, to secure the payment of money had and received from the said A. C. Sweetser, to be laid out and expended, and which was laid out and expended on said map, he assigned his interest and claim against said county under said Act and contract to the said A. C. Sweetser, and that by reason thereof the said Sweetser became and still is interested in this proceeding and the subject matter thereof, and therefore joined him in his petition for mandamus against said Board. A motion on behalf of the Board was made to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Act was not imperative, but was merely intended to authorize the Board to contract.

The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.