# City & County of San Francisco v. Boyd

> California Supreme Court · August 10, 1943 · 22 Cal. 2d 685

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546542

## Case

- **Full name:** CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Et Al., Petitioners, v. HAROLD J. BOYD, as Controller, Etc., Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 10, 1943
- **Citations:** 22 Cal. 2d 685; 140 P.2d 666; 1943 Cal. LEXIS 214
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Curtis
- **Judges:** Gibson, Edmonds, Traynor
- **Cited by:** 64 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/9546542

## Opinion text

*696 CURTIS, J.
I dissent. I agree with the conclusion reached by the majority opinion upon all questions discussed therein excepting that part which holds that this action is not collusive. The answer of the city and county, filed herein, to the petition for leave to intervene in this action, filed by a taxpayer of the municipality, admits that the board of supervisors appropriated a substantial sum of money to pay the attorney representing the controller in the defense of this action. This action, as shown by the majority opinion, is to sustain an ordinance of the board of supervisors. The plaintiff contends that this ordinance is a valid legislative enactment of the board. The defendant contends that it is unconstitutional and void. These admitted facts show conclusively that the action is collusive. The majority opinion goes far beyond any of the authorities cited therein in support of its ruling.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546542. Public record. Not legal advice.