Crandall v. Amador County

Citations

• 20 Cal. 72

Syllabus

<p>Where the parties to a controversy make an agreed case, under the three hundred and seventy-seventh section of the Practice Act, which is submitted for decision to the District Court, the consideration of the Court is restricted to the facts admitted in the case.</p> <p>Where the plaintiff claimed that defendant was indebted to him, and, under the section above referred to, a case was made and submitted, stating the facts agreed upon between the parties, upon which the District Court decided that plaintiff’s demand was not established without proof of other and additional facts : Held, that it was error for the Court, instead of rendering judgment for the defendant, to make an order based upon the supposition that plaintiff might establish such other facts.</p> <p>Mandamus is not the proper remedy for the enforcement of a claim against a county, which has been presented to the Board of Supervisors of the county and by them rejected. In such cases, the statute authorizing the party to sue the county has given him a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law. The writ of mandamus belongs only to such as have legal rights to enforce, and find themselves without an appropriate legal remedy.</p> <p>To authorize a mandamus, it must appear not only that the performance of the act, to enforce which the writ is asked, is a duty resulting from the office, trust or station of the Board or party to whom the writ is to be directed, but that the performance has been requested and refused.</p>