Case ID: cal_63/html/0117-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[In Bank.
    February 2, 1883.]
    F. A. GIBBS, Petitioner, v. WASHINGTON BARTLETT et al., Respondents.
    Mandamus—When the Wbit wild Lie. —Where it is clearly the duty of the board of election commissioners to call and hold an election, performance of such duty cannot be refused on the ground that there may not be sufficient funds in the treasury to defray the expenses.
    The petitioner prayed for a writ of mandate to compel the defendants, as members of the board of election commissioners of the city and county of San Francisco, to provide for, call, and hold a special election for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of that city and county the question of ratifying a charter for its government, prepared and proposed by a board of fifteen freeholders, as provided by art. 11, § 8, of the Constitution.
    The defendants denied that it was their duty to provide for, call, and hold such an election, and alleged specifically as a reason for their refusal that it would necessitate a large expenditure of money from the general fund of the city and county, and that there was not and would not, be any money in such fimd during the then fiscal year with which to defray such expenses.
    
      John F. Swift, and Russell J. Wilson, for Petitioner.
    
      Wm. Craig, for Respondents.
   Per Curiam.

The duties sought to be enforced on the part of the respondents are clearly enjoined by law. Performance of these duties cannot be refused on the ground set up by respondents, to wit, that there may not be sufficient funds in the treasury to defray the expenses of the election.

Let the writ issue as prayed.