Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta San Joaquin Light & Power Corp. v. City of Madera 175 Cal. 229

← Cases

San Joaquin Light & Power Corp. v. City of Madera

175 Cal. 229 Court Cal. Decision date 1917-06-01 Docket Sac. No. 2651 English

Delivered by *230 ANGELLOTTI, C. J.

Contents

Majority

p. 229
[Sac. No. 2651.
In Bank.
June 1, 1917.]
SAN JOAQUIN LIGHT & POWER CORPORATION (a Corporation), Appellant, v. CITY OF MADERA (a Municipal Corporation), et al., Respondents.

Headnote

Municipal Corporations—Payment of Judgment from Revenue of Subsequent Fiscal Year.—Arthur v. City of Petaluma, ante, p. 216, approved to the eflieet that a municipal corporation, in the absence of authorization by the electors, cannot pay, from revenues resulting from tax levies made for a subsequent fiscal year, a claim against the city which has been reduced to judgment, for material and labor furnished the city during previous fiscal years.
APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate to compel the auditing and payment of a claim against the City of Madera.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Short & Sutherland, and Carl E. Lindsay, for Appellant.
F. A. Fee, for Respondents.

Mandamus to compel auditing and payment of a claim of plaintiff against the city of Madera. The superior court gave judgment for defendants, and on appeal by plaintiff to the district court of appeal of the third appellate district the justices of that court were unable to agree upon a judgment. The appeal was therefore transferred to this court for determination.

In all material aspects the case here presented is the same as that of Arthur v. City of Petaluma, ante, p. 216, [ 165 Pac. 698 ]. It is sought to enforce payment against revenues of the fiscal year 1915-16 resulting from tax levies made by the board of trustees of the city, without any authorization by the electors, of a claim of $2,108.75 for electrical power and energy, lights and lighting, material and labor furnished the city during previous fiscal years. The claim has been reduced to judgment, and the proceedings were in accord with the act of March 23, 1901, referred to in the opinion in that case.

The decision in Arthur v. Petaluma, ante, p. 216, [ 165 Pac. 698 ], controls here, and therefore the judgment of the superior court in favor of defendants must be held to be correct.

The judgment is affirmed.

Shaw, J., Sloss, J., Melvin, J., Henshaw, J., and Victor E. Shaw, J., pro tem., concurred.