Myers

Myers v. Mayor of Placerville

Good Law
1 Cal. Unrep. 565
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 7, 1870No. 2004California1,539 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Rhodes, J.

— The objections to the petition for a mandamus — that it does not state the title of the action, nor describe the parties as plaintiffs or defendants, and that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action — are not well taken. The Practice Act does not prescribe that a title shall be given to the proceeding, nor that the respective parties shall be designated by particular names, nor has any particular rule in those respects become established by the usage of the profession. The petition states sufficient facts to entitle the petitioner to the benefit, of the writ.

The answer of the respondents takes issue upon many of the averments of the petition, which we regard as immaterial. It is alleged in the petition that the subscription to the capital stock of the Placerville and Sacramento Valley Railroad Company was made by the common council of the city of Placerville upon the books of the company upon the express condition that the city should not be liable for any of the debts or liabilities of the company beyond the amount of the stock so subscribed. This allegation is denied in the answer. The sixteenth section of the act to authorize the city of…

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.