# Mulville v. City of San Diego

> California Supreme Court · September 22, 1920 · 183 Cal. 734

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3303653

## Case

- **Full name:** MARTIN MULVILLE, Appellant, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO (A Municipal Corporation), Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 22, 1920
- **Citations:** 183 Cal. 734; 192 P. 702; 1920 Cal. LEXIS 464
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Lawlor
- **Judges:** Olney, Lawlor, Sloane, Lennon
- **Cited by:** 26 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3303653

## Opinion text

LAWLOR, J., Dissenting.
I concur in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Olney.
It is not to be questioned that within the purview of the act a district bordering on the ocean may be formed for
*745
an amusement pier. Manifestly, the authority to create such an improvement is barren if the structure may not project beyond the shore line, provided, of course, it be limited to the boundaries of the city of San Diego (Stats. 1889, p. 644). The fact that the pier is erected over the water instead of above the shore line would not, in any true sense, constitute an additional burden on the taxpayers. It would be more in keeping with the legislation to connote the term “therein” according to the character of the particular improvement so that in such a case as this, or of sewers or water supply systems, it may extend beyond, and in the case of streets, alleys, parks, museums, auditoriums, or the like, be confined to the physical area of the district.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3303653. Public record. Not legal advice.