Case ID: cal_45/html/0011-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 3,582.]
    THE PEOPLE ex rel. CHRISTOPHER GREER v. JOHN McCLINTOCK.
    Power oe Meeicipal Aethoritibs.—An Act authorizing a municipal corporation to enter into a contract with a party to supply the city with water and machinery, and connecting pipes for supplying the water, does not authorize the municipal authorities to purchase a site upon which to erect the water works.
    Application to the Supreme Court for writ of mandate.
    The Legislature, in March, 1872, passed an Act (Laws 1871-2, p. 723,) authorizing the Board of Trustees of the City of Sacramento to determine the quantity of water required daily for the use of said city, and then to advertise for plans, detailed specifications, and bids,'for the machinery and connecting pipes, delivered and set up in working order for supplying the quantity of water required. The Act further authorized the Board, from the plans, etc., presented, to select two, and submit to a vote of the people which of the two they would adopt. The Holly plan was the one adopted at an election held under the Act on the 20th day of July, 1872. The city gets its supply of water from the Sacrar mentó River, on the banks of which it is built.
    The Act further authorized the said Board to issue certificates of indebtedness for paying expenses incurred under the Act, which certificates were to be countersigned by the City Auditor. The Board contracted with E. Gunn for a site, on which to erect the water works, and issued certificates of indebtedness under the Act to pay for the same. The Auditor, McClintock, refused to countersign them, claiming that the Act did not confer any authority on the Board to make such purchase. The relator, who was one of the City Trustees, applied for a writ of mandate to compel the Auditor to countersign the certificates.
    
      
      J. H. Me Kune, for Petitioner.
    
      E. C. Clark, for Respondent.
   By the Court:

We are of opinion that the certificates of indebtedness provided for by the Act of March 30th, 1872, “ to provide the City of Sacramento with a better supply of water,” can be applied only to the payment of the work to be done under the bid accepted by the vote of the people and the purchase of the other and further pipes, hydrants, and minor works mentioned in the Act, and that no authority is given by this Act to purchase a building or site for a building to be used in connection with the water works contemplated by the Act.

Mandamus denied.