
    [S. F. No. 5294.
    In Bank.
    June 29, 1909.]
    E. C. GRAHAM, Petitioner, v. JAMES N. GILLETT, Governor of the State of California, et al., Respondents.
    San Francisco Sea-wall Bonds—Mandamus by Prospective Bidder to Compel Signing.—A person who is merely desirous of bidding on the bonds authorized to be offered for sale under the so-called “San Francisco Sea-wall Act” (Stats. 1903, p. 247), has not a present status entitling him to maintain a writ of mandate to compel the governor, controller, and treasurer, now in office, to sign such bonds, to be issued in place of bonds already signed by their predecessors.
    Id.—Successful Bidder Entitled to Valid Bonds.—The writ will also be denied for the reason that the successful bidder at the sale will be entitled to bonds properly executed, and if the bonds 'tendered are not so executed as to make them valid securities he may then compel the issuance of others which are sufficient in every respect.
    APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate directed to the Governor, the Controller, and the Treasurer, of the State of California.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    Heller, Powers & Ehrman, for Petitioner.
    U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, for Respondents.
   THE COURT.

This is a petition for an alternative writ of mandate to the governor, controller, and treasurer of the state, requiring them to execute certain bonds offered for sale in pursuance of an act approved March 20, 1903, and known as the “San Francisco Sea-wall Act.” (Stats. 1903, p. 247.)

By the provisions of the act the treasurer was directed to prepare two thousand bonds for one thousand dollars each, they were all to bear date January 2, 1905, and were to be sold from time to time as the needs of the fund required. They were to be executed in behalf of the state by the governor, controller, and treasurer, but it is not clear from the terms of the law whether they were to be signed by those who were incumbents of said offices at the date which the bonds were required to bear, or by those who might be in office at the time they were offered for sale. They were in fact signed by Governor Pardee and the controller and treasurer who were in office January 2, 1905, and in that form five hundred bonds are now offered for sale. The petitioner is desirous of bidding, and in that character alone seeks to compel the present governor, controller, and treasurer, to sign five hundred bonds, to be issued in place of those already signed by their predecessors.

The writ of mandate is denied for two reasons: 1. Because the petitioner has not at present a status which entitles him to invoke the remedy; and 2. .Because he or any other successful bidder at the sale will be entitled to bonds properly executed, •and if the bonds tendered are not so executed as to make them valid securities he may then compel the issuance of others which are sufficient in every respect.  