Thiel Detective Co. v. County of Tuolumne

Caution
1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 425·37 Cal. App. 423·173 P. 1120
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 3, 1918Civ. No. 1812.California1,987 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Burnett, J.

The appeal is from the judgment in favor of respondent for detective services performed for the county by virtue of an agreement with the district attorney. The claim was properly presented to the board of supervisors, and by said board it was rejected. Thereafter, within the statutory period, an action was brought in the superior court, and by said court it was found that plaintiff was employed by the district attorney of the county “to make certain investigations and secure evidence concerning the alleged violations of certain of the criminal laws of the' state, ’ ’ that certain services were performed in pursuance of this employment at an agreed compensation, that in the performance of said services, plaintiff incurred certain expenses incidental to said investigation, that the charges for the same, together with said expense, were reasonable, that they were necessarily incurred in the course of said employment, were a proper charge against the county, and that a claim therefor properly verified was filed with the clerk of the board of supervisors, and thereafter rejected by said board.

There is no question of the authority of the district attorney to incur an expense of this…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.