Crocker v. Wolson
Before: Sawyer
Synopsis
This action was commenced in- the Supreme Court.
July 1st, 1866, the Treasurer of Sacramento County had in bis hands about twenty-five thousand dollars which was collected on the special tax called the “ Railroad Interest Tax,” provided for in the sixth section of the Act of April 25th, 1863, authorizing the City and County of Sacramento to subscribe to the capital stock of the Central Pacific Railroad. It required only twelve thousand dollars of this money to pay the interest on the bonds which fell due July 1st, 1866. The plaintiff was the owner of thirty of the bonds, and claimed that it was the duty of the Treasurer to advertise for proposals for the redemption of bonds with the surplus of the money after paying the July interest. The Treasurer refused to advertise, and claimed the right to transfer the surplus to the Redemption Fund of the county, by virtue of the thirty-eighth section of an Act entitled “ an Act providing for the government of the County of Sacramento,” approved April 25th, 1863.
The plaintiff applied for a' writ of mandate to compel the Treasurer to advertise for proposals to redeem bonds issued to the railroad company, and to redeem the same if there were any proposals.
By the Court, Sawyer, J.: There can be no doubt that the “Railroad Interest Tax,” collected under section six of the Act of April 25th, 1863, to authorize the City and County of Sacramento to subscribe to the capital stock of the Central Pacific Railroad Company, (Laws 1863, p. 449,) when collected, constituted a part of the “ Special Fund, to be called the Railroad Fund,” to be paid out solely in payment of the interest on said bonds, and the redemption of said bonds; or that, under the provisions of section seven of said Act, “ Whenever, at any time after the payment of, or providing for the July interest on said bonds, there shall be in the Railroad Fund a sum of two thousand dollars, or upward, remaining after the payment of the interest then due on said bonds, it is the duty of the Treasurer of said city and county to advertise # * for sealed propo-
sals for the redemption of said bonds,” in all respects as therein provided. The language of that section is too plain to admit of a plausible argument in favor of any other construction.
If these moneys could, under any circumstances, be transferred to the Redemption Fund, under the provisions of section thirty-eight of “ An Act providing for the government of the [666]County of Sacramento,” passed April 25th, 1863, it could only take place after all claims against such fund (the ‘Railroad Fund ’) have been paid.” (Laws 1863, p. 515, Sec. 38.) And that could not happen till all bonds presented for redemption, upon a proper advertisement of proposals, in pursuance of section seven of the Railroad Act, had been redeemed as therein required. The transfer of the balance in question to the “ Redemption Fund,” provided for in the charter, in the mode shown by the record, is an unauthorized diversion of the moneys from the purposes to which they had been appropriated by law.
The applicant, we think, is entitled to his writ. A peremp-' tory mandate is awarded, in pursuance of the prayer of the petition.
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)