Skip to main content
· 2/21/1896

City & County of San Francisco v. Broderick

Citations

  • 111 Cal. 302
  • 43 P. 960
  • 1896 Cal. LEXIS 579

Syllabus

<p>Election Commissioners of San Francisco—Power over Election Expenses—Limit Fixed by Supervisors not Binding.—The election commissioners of San Francisco have exclusive power over the conduct, management, and control of elections therein, and demands on the treasury authorized or allowed by them for the purpose of carrying out the registration and election laws have the same force and effect as if authorized or allowed by the board of supervisors, nor are they bound by any limit fixed by the board of supervisors as its estimate of registration and election expenses to be paid out of the general fund; nor does the fact that its estimate is too low deprive the holders of claims for the excess above such estimate, which have been allowed by the election commissioners, of their right to payment so long as there is money in the treasury applicable thereto.</p> <p>Id.—Ordinance of Supervisors—Duty of Auditor.—It is not competent for the supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, by ordinance or resolution, to restrict the amount to be paid for election expenses, nor to restrict the auditor in the exercise of his office, nor to absolve him from the performance of his duty to audit demands upon the treasury which have been approved and ordered paid by the proper board or officer, and the holder of such a demand has the right to the enforcement of this duty.</p> <p>Id.—Favoritism by Auditor—Insufficient Funds.—The auditor is not justified in showing any favoritism by auditing the claim of one person in preference to that of another, upon the theory that there may not be sufficient money in the treasury to meet all demands upon it.</p> <p>Id.—City and County—Choice among Creditors—Injunction against Auditor.—The city and county of San Francisco can in law have no choice as to which of its creditors shall first be paid; and it cannot by ordinance or resolution restrain the auditor from auditing demands against it which have been properly allowed and ordered paid.</

Judges: Harrison

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.