Case Name: EDWARD E. DODGE, Respondent, v. BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS et al., Appellants
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1905-09-19
Citations: 1 Cal. App. 608
Docket Number: No. 59
Parties: EDWARD E. DODGE, Respondent, v. BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 608–608

Head Matter:
[No. 59.
First Appellate District.
September 19, 1905.]
EDWARD E. DODGE, Respondent, v. BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS et al., Appellants.
Mandamus—Statute of Limitations—Reinstatement of Policeman Dismissed.—An application for a writ of mandate to compel the police commissioners of the city and county of San Francisco to reinstate a patrolman of the police force dismissed by them nearly nine years prior to the application is barred by subdivision 1 of section 338 and by section 343 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J. C. B. Hebhard, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Franklin K. Lane, City Attorney, for Appellants.
T. C. West, and H. M. Owens, for Respondent.

Opinion:
COOPER, J.
Application for writ of mandate.
The petition alleges that the defendants, acting as the board of police commissioners of the city and county of San Francisco, did on or about the twelfth day of June, 1893, dismiss the plaintiff from his position of patrolman of the police force of the city and county of San Francisco. The petition for the writ was filed March 6, 1902.
In the case of Jones v. Board of Police Commissioners, 141 Cal. 96, [74 Pac. 696], an action similar to the present, it was held that the cause of action was barred by subdivision 1 of section 338 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and also by section 343 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That ease was followed and approved by this court in Farrell v. Board of Police Commissioners, filed May 24, 1905, ante, p. 5, [81 Pac. 674].
Under the authority of these cases the judgment in this case is reversed.
Harrison, P. J., and Hall, J., concurred.