McDonald v. Bird
McDonald v. Bird
Opinion of the Court
Field, C. J. and Cope, J.. concurring.
The Consolidation Act, applicable to the city and county of Sacramento, (Statutes 1858, 279) provides, by the thirty-sixth " section, that the revenue collected or accruing prior to the first of January, 1859, shall be apportioned as follows: Twelve per cent, to the School Fund, eight per cent, to the Pauper Fund, eighteen per cent, to the Salary Fund, twelve per cent, to the Contingent Fund, and the balance (fifty per cent.) to the
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for judgment in pursuance of this opinion.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- McDONALD v. BIRD
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Warrants drawn by tlio Auditor of Sacramento county on the Treasurer thereof, and duly registered, and endorsed “ not paid for want of funds,” August 12th, 1853, come within the preferred claims provided for in that clause of the thirty-sixth section of the Consolidation Act of 1858, 279, which says, in distributing the revenue, “ and the balance to a General Bund, which shall be applied to the payment of the outstanding Auditor’s warrants lawfully drawn on the treasury, and payable in the order of them registry.” Even if these warrants might have been funded under the Act of 1858, it was a privilege, and not an obligation on the part of the holder, to fund; and his declining to fund did not take Ms warrants out of section thirty-six of the Act of 1858. McDonald v. Maddux ('ll Cal. 188J does not touch tl3s case.