Corporations
SANTA ANA HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, a Public Corporation, and JAMES H. ADAMS & COMPANY, a Corporation, Petitioners, v. T. B. TALBERT, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange, Respondent
19 Cal. App. 108·District Court of Appeal of the State of California·1912·CA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
[Civ. No. 1157.
Second Appellate District.
May 17, 1912.]
SANTA ANA HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, a Public Corporation, and JAMES H. ADAMS & COMPANY, a Corporation, Petitioners, v. T. B. TALBERT, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange, Respondent.
Schools—Election to Issue Bonds fob School Purposes—Affording Better Facilities for School Children—Case Affirmed.—In an election for the issue of bonds for school purposes, it is held, on the authority of Santa Ana School District v. Talbert, ante, p. 104, [124 Pac. 872], that the expression, “to afford better facilities for the school children of said school district,” is not expressive of an additional purpose for the issuance of the bonds, but of a conclusion that the improvements and purposes specified in the statute would afford better facilities for that end.
APPLICATION for writ of mandate to the chairman of the board of supervisors of Orange County.
The facts are stated and referred to in the opinion of the court.
Williams & Rutan, and W. F. Heathman, for Petitioners.
L. A. West, District Attorney, and A. E. Koepsel, Assistant District Attorney, for Respondent.
[MAJORITY — ALLEN, P. J.]
ALLEN, P. J.
The facts and questions presented in this application for writ of mandate are identical with those stated in our opinion in the case of Santa Ana School District of Orange County, California, et al. v. T. B. Talbert, Chairman, etc., Civil No. 1156, ante, p. 104, [124 Pac. 872], this day filed, with one exception, namely, that the objectionable clause is not preceded by the word “and.” In other words, after the legitimate and particular purposes are specified, there is appended thereto the statement “to afford better facilities,” etc. This, to our minds, is a clear expression of a conclusion as distinguished from the statement of a purpose, and its insertion in the resolution of the board does not render invalid the bonds sought to be issued in such proceeding.
Writ granted.
James, J., and Shaw, J., concurred.