Santa Ana H. S. Dist. v. Talbert

California Court of Appeal May 17, 1912 No. Civ. No. 1157.Published

Before: ALLEN, P. J. —

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the inclusion of the phrase "to afford better facilities" in a school district's bond resolution is a statement of conclusion rather than a purpose, and therefore does not invalidate the bonds.

Issues

Whether the inclusion of the phrase "to afford better facilities" in a bond resolution renders the bonds invalid.

Disposition. Writ granted.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“This, to our minds, is a clear expression of a conclusion as distinguished from the statement of a purpose, and its insertion in the resolution of the board does not render invalid the bonds sought to be issued in such proceeding.”

The facts and questions presented in this application for writ of mandate are identical with those stated in our opinion in the case of Santa Ana School District of *Page 109 Orange County, California, et al. v. T. B. Talbert, Chairman,etc., Civil No. 1156, ante, p. 104, [124 P. 872], this day filed, with one exception, namely, that the objectionable clause is not preceded by the word "and." In other words, after the legitimate and particular purposes are specified, there is appended thereto the statement "to afford better facilities," etc. This, to our minds, is a clear expression of a conclusion as distinguished from the statement of a purpose, and its insertion in the resolution of the board does not render invalid the bonds sought to be issued in such proceeding.

Writ granted.

James, J., and Shaw, J., concurred.

Santa Ana H. S. Dist. v. Talbert

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief