Court Opinion

ID: 3280074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 16:53:43.406306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:13:38.536699
License: Public Domain

The petitioner as a taxpayer asks for a writ of prohibition directed to Charles A. Bantel, as treasurer of the city and county of San Francisco, to prohibit him from paying a bill incurred by one W. J. Biggy, elisor of the superior court, amounting to the sum of $1,092, for the care, custody and maintenance of one Abraham Ruef for the month of July, 1907, which bill has been approved by Hon. Frank H. Dunne, one of the judges of the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, and ordered paid by said judge.
The writ of prohibition arrests the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board or person when such proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board or person, and there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 1102, 1103.) The said Bantel, as treasurer of the city and county of San Francisco, would not be proceeding in excess of his jurisdiction in paying a bill which has been incurred or approved by the judge of the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco. The writ of prohibition will not lie in such case, even if it be conceded that the bill is illegal or not authorized by law. In such case the taxpayer has a remedy by proceeding in the superior court under the process of injunction to restrain the payment. This remedy is one of frequent occurrence in our courts, but we know of no practice authorizing any court to prohibit the payment of a claim, except by injunction, even although the claim may be illegal.
The writ is denied.
Hall, J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred. *Page 217