Angus v. Browning
Before: Garoutte
Synopsis
Reclamation District—Money in Possession of President—Payment to County Treasurer—Mandamus.—A writ oí mandate will not lie, at the instance of a creditor of a reclamation district, the lands of which are situated in different counties, against the person who is the president of the board of trustees of the district, to compel him to pay to the treasurer of one of such counties a portion of the district funds, collected by him and in his possession as agent of the board. The making of such payment is no part of the official duty of the president, and a writ of mandate will only lie to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty I resulting from an office, trust, or station.
GAROUTTE, J.
Plaintiffs sue as 'executors of the will of James G. Fair, deceased. The defendant is president of the board of trustees of Reclamation District No. 108—-lying partly in the county of Yolo and partly in the county of Colusa. Said district is a public corporation created for public purposes, the main object being the reclamation of swamp lands. (Pol. Code, sec. 3446 et seq.;
People v. Reclamation Dist.,
53 Cal. 346;
People v. Reclamation
Dist., 117 Cal. 114.) The statute provides that the moneys raised by assessments on lands in such districts must be paid by the board of trustees; if the district lies partly in different counties, to the treasurer of the county in which the tracts on which assessments are collected may be respectively situated. The funds thus received into the county treasury are to be paid out "for the work of reclamation upon the warrants of the trustees, approved by the board of supervisors of the county.” (Pol. Code, secs. 3456-66.)
It is alleged in the complaint, among other things, that the said district, through its officers, levied assessments upon ihe lands situated therein; that lists were made showing the tracts assessed and the amount assessed against each, and that the board of trustees "turned over said lists to said Browning,” the defendant, for collection; that in his official capacity, as president of the board, defendant collected on account of said assessments the sum of thirty-seven thousand four hundred dollars; that he has not paid said sum or any part thereof to the treasurer of either Yolo or Colusa county nor to said board of trustees, but neglects and refuses so to do, “and claims the right, as president of said board, to withhold said money and pay out the same on behalf of said district as to him seems proper”; that such neglect and refusal "is now'and always has been contrary to law, upheld by a majority of the board of trustees of said district.” That Fair, plaintiffs’ testator, at the time of his death, was the creditor of said district upon its warrants, regularly drawn by the board of trustees of the district, to the amount of about five thousand dollars, which warrants
[504]
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)