MARY E. CHILTON et al., Petitioners, v. JAMES ROLPH, Jr., et al., Respondents

[Civ. No. 4318. First Appellate District, Division Two. July 11, 1922.] MARY E. CHILTON et al., Petitioners, v. JAMES ROLPH, Jr., et al., Respondents. Municipal Corporations'—Recovery of Taxes Paid Under Protest —Payment of Judgment—Levy of Tax—Constitutional Law.— Peremptory writ of mandate issued on the authority of Oscar Heyman Brother (a Corporation) v. Edwin C. Bath et aZ., ante, p. 499. PBOCEEDING in Mandamus to require the levy and collection of a tax sufficient to pay a judgment against a municipality. Writ granted. The facts are the same as those stated in the opinion in Oscar Heyman & Brother (a Corporation) v. Eckwin C. Bath et al., ante, p. 499. Keyes & Erskine for Petitioners. George Lull, City Attorney, and Maurice T. Dooling, Jr., Assistant City Attorney, for Bespondents. [MAJORITY — THE COURT.] THE COURT. Let a peremptory writ issue as prayed on the authority of Oscar Heyman & Brother (a Corporation) v. Edwin C. Bath et al., ante, p. 499 [208 Pac. 981]. A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of - appeal, was denied by the supreme court on September 7, 1922. All the Justices present concurred. Bichards, J., pro tern., and Myers, J., pro tern., were acting.