# Bates v. Porter

> California Supreme Court · December 1, 1887 · 74 Cal. 224

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5443254

## Case

- **Full name:** GEORGE E. BATES v. JAMES N. PORTER, Treasurer of the City of Sacramento
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 1, 1887
- **Citations:** 74 Cal. 224; 15 P. 732; 1887 Cal. LEXIS 773
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by McFarland
- **Judges:** McFarland, Paterson, Thornton
- **Cited by:** 23 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/5443254

## Opinion text

McFarland, J., dissenting.
I dissent from the conclusion of the majority of the court, and concur in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Paterson.
It must be remembered that the water-works in question are conducted by the city of Sacramento as a busi ness,—just like the business of any other water company, or of any mining, manufacturing, railroad, or mercantile company. In such a case the “revenue” is, of course, the excess of receipts over expenditures. If other financial miracles could be wrought as easily as the turning of the gross proceeds of a business into revenue, “then chapels had been churches, and poor men’s cottages princes’ palaces.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5443254. Public record. Not legal advice.