Hopper

Lassen Municipal Utility District v. Hopper

Good Law
1935 Cal. LEXIS 618·5 Cal. 2d 18·53 P.2d 347
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 30, 1935S. F. No. 15508California1,067 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Waste, J.

The petitioning district, a public corporation (Morrison v. Smith Bros., Inc., 211 Cal. 36 [ 293 Pac. 53 ]), seeks a writ of mandate commanding the respondent, its own secretary, to execute a contract duly authorized by its board of directors. The purpose of the execution of the contract, as ordered by the board, is the acquisition, construction and completion by the district of a power project, the cost of which project will be paid out of the proceeds derived from the sale of bonds which shall be payable solely from the income earned by the property purchased with the proceeds of the loan evidenced by these “revenue bonds”. The respondent refuses to execute the contract on the ground that it is illegal and invalid for several reasons, the principal one of which is that there is no legislative sanction or authority for the district to issue such revenue bonds. The decision of this question determines the entire cause. If authority for the proposed action of the district can be found, there appears no legal objection to the issuance of the bonds. That proposition has been definitely and but recently settled in this state. In our examination and consideration of the authorities…

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.