Davis v. Porter
Before: Thornton
Synopsis
Sacramento Bonds—Interest on Interest—Mandamus.—The treasurer of the city of Sacramento cannot be compelled by mandamus to pay interest on the unpaid interest of the bonds issued in pursuance of section 37 of the act of April 24, 1858. Neither that act, nor the act of April 25, 1863, imposes upon the treasurer the duty of paying more than annual interest.
Id.—Office of Writ.—A writ of mandate does not lie to command a person to perform an act beyond that enjoined by law upon him as a duty pertaining to his office or position.
Thornton, J. Only one question is before us for decision in this case, viz: Is the petitioner entitled to have the writ of mandate ordered by this court, commanding the treasurer of the city of Sacramento to pay interest on the interest due on the coupons which were not paid at maturity ?
It is alleged in the petition that there was due the petitioner by the city upon his coupons the sum of $10,092, besides interest thereon from the first day of January, 1872. The prayer of the petitioner is that the respondent, treasurer of the city aforesaid, be commanded to pay the petitioner the sum above mentioned, with interest thereon from the first day of January, 1872, besides his costs.
The alternative writ pursued the allegation and prayer above mentioned.
Is the petitioner entitled to the writ with the command, as claimed by him? This writ is issued to enforce the performance of an act specially enjoined by law, as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. (C. C. P., § 1085.) No court in this state can command a person to perform an act beyond that enjoined by law upon him as a duty pertaining to his office or position. If, then, such command in the writ of mandate to be issued would impose upon the respondent, as treasurer of the city as aforesaid, the performance of an act beyond what was required of him by law in the discharge of the duties of his office, such command should not be inserted in the writ.
Now, what is the duty of the treasurer under the law, in regard to the payment of interest on the coupons in question ? Does it extend to the payment of the annual interest only on the bonds to which those coupons were attached, or does it go beyond this, and include the payment of interest on the interest due on the coupons ? This can only be determined by the provisions of the statutes relating to the point under discussion.
The bonds were issued by authority of the thirty-seventh section of the act of April 24,1858 (statutes 1858, p. 280), and were to bear interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum, payable annually at the office of the treasurer, on the first day of January in each year. Coupons for the interest were to be at[660]tached to each bond, to be signed by the treasurer and consecutively numbered. It was made the duty of the bookkeeper of the city and county, and also of the treasurer, to keep a separate record of all bonds issued, showing the number, date and amount of each bond, to whom issued, upon what claim and its-amount; and it was provided that none of the claims specified for which these bonds were to be issued should be liquidated or paid, except in the manner provided in the act. (See section above cited.)
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)