City of Redwood v. Myers
Before: Sturtevant
STURTEVANT, J. This is an original application by the petitioner asking for a writ of mandate directing the respondent, B. E. Myers, as Clerk of the City of Redwood City, to sign $266,000 bonds alleged to have been duly authorized by the petitioner. The petition appears to be regular in every respect and to show a full compliance by the petitioner with the provisions of an act entitled, “An act authorizing the incurring of indebtedness by cities, towns, and municipal corporations for municipal improvements, and regulating the acquisition, construction, or completion thereof”, approved February 25, 1901. (Stats. 1901, p. 27.) To the petition filed by the petitioner the respondent interposed a general demurrer. We do not understand him as claiming that the petition is insufficient in any re[12]spect, however, he calls to our attention that on August 14, 1931, a statute took effect entitled, “An Act providing for the formation, government and operation of harbor districts, the calling and conducting of elections in such districts of harbor commissioners, defining their powers and duties, and providing for the issuance and disposal of bonds of such harbor districts, and providing for the assessment, levy and collection of taxes for the payment of such bonds and for the ordinary annual expenses of such harbor districts.” (Stats. 1931, p. 1483.) He does not claim the said statute in terms created any specific district; but he does claim that San Mateo County Harbor District was thereafter organized under, said statute. That claim is based on paragraph IX of the petition, which is as follows:
“That the City of Redwood City has authorized "the sale of said bonds herein mentioned and is ready and willing to deliver the same to the purchasers thereof but that the respondent herein who is the Clerk of the City of Redwood City and who is required to sign said bonds by the provisions of the Act under which said bonds were issued has refused to sign the same upon the following grounds:
“1. San Mateo County has been organized as a port district under the provisions of an Act of the Legislature of the State of California (Stats. 1931, page 1483 et seq.). San Mateo County Harbor District ‘therefore has exclusive authority to manage, control and operate ports and all works and facilities situated within the District and to charge and fix the rates for wharfage and other harbor facilities. That accordingly Redwood City has no authority to construct a harbor improvement or to issue bonds therefor as the exclusive authority for this purpose has now been vested in San Mateo County Harbor District.
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)