Court Opinion

ID: 5435758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-08 17:54:07.410629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:31:49.472541
License: Public Domain

Sawyer, J., and Siiafter, J., concurring specially.
We are not prepared to say that the individual answers of the six Supervisors, alleging a willingness to perform the duties sought to be enforced, ought to be struck out. But disregarding them, and conceding the answer verified by McCoppin to be the answer of the Board, we are satisfied that said answer does not “ raise a question as to a matter of fact essential to the determination of the motionand that complainants are entitled to a peremptory mandamus against the Board of Supervisors, as prayed for in the petition.
Loewy, the County Clerk, substantially denies that he had an opportunity to countersign the bonds, and the inference from his answer is that he is ready to countersign when a proper opportunity is given. We think his answer raises a material issue as to himj but we do not understand that the relators propose to put in any evidence on that issue; and taking the answer as true, Loewy is not in default. The proceeding must, therefore, be dismissed as to Loewy, and a peremptory writ of mandamus issued against the Board of Supervisors.