# Thomason v. Ruggles

> California Supreme Court · May 1, 1886 · 69 Cal. 465

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5442523

## Case

- **Full name:** E. R. THOMASON v. C. S. RUGGLES, Superintendent of Public Streets, etc.
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 1, 1886
- **Citations:** 69 Cal. 465; 11 P. 20; 1886 Cal. LEXIS 671
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McKinstrysharpstein
- **Judges:** McKee, McKinstry, Myrick, Ross, Sharpstein, Thornton
- **Cited by:** 10 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/5442523

## Opinion text

McKinstry, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurring.
We think the street law of 1872 is a part of the charter of the city and county of San Francisco, which was not re *479 pealed or abrogated by the constitution of 1879. Our reasons for this conclusion are fully set forth in the opinion of Mr. Justice Sharpstein in Staude v. Election Commissioners, 61 Cal. 324 , and in the opinion of Mr. Justice McKinstry in Donahue v. Graham, 61 Cal. 277 -282.
We also think that the act of March, 1885, is not a “ general law ” within the meaning of the last clause of section 6, article 11, of the constitution.
We do not deem it necessary, however, to dissent from the judgment, inasmuch as the petitioner has not prayed for a writ of mandate, and the petition avers that the law of 1872 is not in force, while the law of 1885 has not been complied with. In the exercise of its jurisdiction to entertain or refuse the application, the court below was justified in refusing it to one who (even if he had asked for a writ) has declared in his petition that, in his own judgment, he is not entitled to it.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5442523. Public record. Not legal advice.