# Meyer v. City of San Diego

> California Supreme Court · May 31, 1898 · 121 Cal. 102

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5449204

## Case

- **Full name:** ALBERT MEYER v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Respondents H. I. CAPRON, Interveners and Appellants R. NICCOLLS, Intervenors and Appellants Consolidated with Case of SAN DIEGO WATER COMPANY v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 31, 1898
- **Citations:** 121 Cal. 102; 53 P. 434; 1898 Cal. LEXIS 858
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McFarland
- **Judges:** Fleet, Henshaw, McFarland
- **Cited by:** 32 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/5449204

## Opinion text

McFARLAND, J., concurring.
I concur in the judgment of reversal. I also concur generally in the opinion of Mr. Justice Henshaw, except that I desire a little more pointedly to emphasize the distinction between the case at bar, and a case where a city in which the judge is a taxpayer is a party, and where there is merely a possibility that a judgment against the city might result in an increased levy of taxes, and a judgment in favor of the city might bring about a reduction of taxation. In the Iat *113 ter case—and in others that could be mentioned where a similar principle applies—the interest is too shadowy, indirect, remote, and contingent to be within the rule that a man cannot be a judge in his own case. (See Dallas v. Peacock, 89 Tex. 58 ; Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Co., 118 Cal. 249 , and cases there cited.) But in the case at bar the interest of the judge was not indirect, remote, or contingent; it directly involved the immediate imposition of a special annual tax upon his property to continue for forty years.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5449204. Public record. Not legal advice.