Hunt

Hunt v. Broderick

Caution
104 Cal. 313·1894 Cal. LEXIS 909·37 P. 1040
Supreme Court of CaliforniaOctober 2, 1894No. 15561California1,485 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment of the superior court in a mandamus proceeding, by which the defendant as auditor was required to audit, allow, etc., a certain claim and demand of plaintiff against the city and county of San Francisco which had been duly passed and allowed by the board of supervisors of said city and county. The appeal is upon the judgment-roll and a bill of exceptions. We see no good reason for disturbing the judgment of the court below.

There is no doubt from the evidence that the demand of respondent’s intestate, Sharp, was a just one. The defenses and the points made here for reversal are in their nature technical — that is, they are based upon alleged irregularities committed by said Sharp, deceased, in presenting his demand and in prosecuting the appeal, and upon certain statutory provisions claimed to be obstructions which shut out his right of recovery.

I. Appellant objects to the form of demand, because it does not so specify the items thereof as to sufficiently comply with section 84 of the Consolidation Act. The demand was for legal services rendered by Sharp as an attorney in a protracted litigation, which resulted in the recovery by…

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.