# Jacobs v. Bd. of Supervisors of S.F.

> California Supreme Court · October 14, 1893 · 100 Cal. 121

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5446706

## Case

- **Full name:** JULIUS JACOBS v. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 14, 1893
- **Citations:** 100 Cal. 121; 34 P. 630; 1893 Cal. LEXIS 758
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Paterson
- **Judges:** Beatty, Harrison, McFarland, Paterson
- **Cited by:** 25 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/5446706

## Opinion text

Paterson, J., concurring.
I concur in the judgment and in the construction placed upon section 1, article XIV, of the constitution, by Mr. Justice McFarland. I think, however, that the judgment is not objectionable, on the ground that it seeks to interfere with the exercise of the discretion of the board, or any member *139 thereof, or that, conceding the theory of the petitioner to be correct, the writ must run against the mayor as well as the board.
The record shows that after the mayor refused to approve the ordinance and return the same with his objections thereto, the board of supervisors refused to entertain the objection, and refused to take any action whatever with respect thereto. If the mayor had a right to act in the premises, it was the duty of the board of supervisors to consider his objections, and it is in no way an interference with their discretion to say that they must act in some manner upon them. When they have acted, of course that is the end of the matter; their discretion cannot be controlled by the court.
If it be conceded that the mayor is a part of the power which must fix the water rates, he is not necessarily a party to a proceeding of this kind. He acts independently and upon his own responsibility. This he has done. The board alone refuses to perform its duty, according to the theory of the petitioner, and I see no reason why a writ, in such a case, should not run against that branch of the law or order making power.
As the mayor, however, is not a part of the power which fixes water rates, under the provision of the constitution, the questions as to whether the judgment is directed against the proper parties, or whether it interferes with the exercise of discretion, are unnecessary to the decision in this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5446706. Public record. Not legal advice.