Case ID: cal-app_14/html/0249-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "COOPER, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Civ. No. 745.
    First Appellate District.
    September 13, 1910.]
    UNITED STATES PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, a Corporation, Appellant, v. BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., Respondents.
    Mandamus—Permit to Carry Weapon by Agent of Humane Society— Polios Commissioners op San Francisco.—A writ of mandate will not lie to compel the board of police commissioners of the city and county of San Francisco to issue written permits to carry weapons to the agents of a corporation organized for the prevention of cruelty to children and animals. The matter of the issuance of such permits is in the discretion of the board.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco refusing a writ of mandate. Prank J. Murasky, Judge.
    This was an application for a writ of mandate brought by the plaintiff, a corporation organized under the laws of California, for the prevention of cruelty to children and animals, to compel the board of police commissioners of the city and county of San Francisco to issue written permits to the authorized agents of the plaintiff to carry weapons similar to those that other peace officers are authorized to carry. The plaintiff based its claim to the relief demanded on the provisions of section 607f of the Civil Code. The superior court denied the writ. In affirming the judgment the district court of appeal, by Cooper, P. J., rendered the following oral opinion.
    Frank Schilling, for Appellant.
    Percy V. Long, City Attorney, and Jesse H. Steinhart, Assistant City Attorney, for Respondents.
   COOPER, P. J.

This being an application for a writ of mandate to compel the board of police commissioners to issue permits to certain persons described in the petition to carry weapons, and the statute to which our attention is called making it entirely discretionary with the board of police commissioners, and there being nothing to show that it was the duty of such board of police commissioners to issue such permit, and the writ of mandate being a prerogative writ, which issues only in cases where it is made the duty of any inferior tribunal, board, or person, by reason of their office, to do some act, and there being no such duty imposed upon this board, the judgment is affirmed.