22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4c9,Section 2642 of the Political Code, as amended in 1883 (Stats. 1883, p. 8), provided:— Under that provision of law, the petitioner in the present case presented to the board of supervisors of Solano County a petition signed by a majority of the tax-payers of Suisun road district of that county, asking the appointment of the petitioner road overseer of the district. The board having refused to make the appointment, the Superior Court, upon the application of petitioner, awarded a writ of mandate to compel the appointment. Manifestly, the judgment is erroneous. Under no possible view of the statute was the board of supervisors obliged to appoint the person petitioned for road overseer. Nor under a true reading of the statute was the board obliged to appoint any one, although requested to do so by a majority of the tax-payers of the district. That the statute, which has since been changed (Stats. 1885, p. 94), was directory, is shown by the provision: “ If the board does not appoint road overseers, the road commissioners within their respective districts shall perform the duties imposed on road overseers by the provisions of this chapter.” Judgment reversed. McKinstry, J., and Myrick, J., concurred.24:T4e4,

Section 2642 of the Political Code, as amended in 1883 (Stats. 1883, p. 8), provided:—

Under that provision of law, the petitioner in the present case presented to the board of supervisors of Solano County a petition signed by a majority of the tax-payers of Suisun road district of that county, asking the appointment of the petitioner road overseer of the district. The board having refused to make the appointment, the Superior Court, upon the application of petitioner, awarded a writ of mandate to compel the appointment. Manifestly, the judgment is erroneous. Under no possible view of the statute was the board of supervisors obliged to appoint the person petitioned for road overseer. Nor under a true reading of the statute was the board obliged to appoint any one, although requested to do so by a majority of the tax-payers of the district.

That the statute, which has since been changed (Stats. 1885, p. 94), was directory, is shown by the provision: “ If the board does not appoint road overseers, the road commissioners within their respective districts shall perform the duties imposed on road overseers by the provisions of this chapter.”

Judgment reversed.

McKinstry, J., and Myrick, J., concurred.