County of Modoc v. Ballard
Before: Nicol
Synopsis
APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate to compel a county auditor to attest certain bonds. Peremptory writ issued.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
NICOL, P. J.,
pro tem
This is an application by the county of Modoc for a writ of mandate to compel the respondent, as auditor of said county, to attest certain bonds of the county amounting to four hundred thousand dollars. His refusal to attest the bonds is for the alleged reason that the election, at which the issue of the bonds were authorized, was not called in conformity to the provisions of section 7 of the act of the legislature of March 19, 1907, and acts amendatory thereof, commonly called the County Highway Commission Act. (Peering’s General Laws of California, 1915 ed., p. 516.)
The specific ground of his refusal to attest the bonds is set forth in a notice to the board of supervisors of said county, in which he alleges that the notice of election was defective in that it “did not describe the highways to be constructed and repaired with the proceeds of such bonds, as required by section 7 of said statute; but on the contrary, said notice merely referred to such highways of the county, as embodied in the report and delineated on the map prepared by the County Highway Commission, which said report and map have been accepted and approved by the said board of supervisors on the twenty-sixth day of May, 1919.”
In view of the respondent’s objection, it is necessary to consider certain provisions of the act of March 19, 1907, in connection with certain provisions of section 4088 of the Political Code. This section of the Political Code is the general law as to the issue, sale, and payment of county bonds, for all purposes for which a county may issue the same, including bonds “for the purpose of building or constructing roads, bridges or highways.”
To institute a bond issue under the provisions of this section the board of supervisors must by order specify the purpose for which the indebtedness is to be incurred, the amount of bonds which they propose to issue, the rate of interest, the number of years, not exceeding forty, the whole or any part of the bonds are to run, and shall further pro
[284]
vide for submitting the question of the issuance of said bonds to the electors of the county at the next general election, or at a special election to be called for that purpose.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)