Boyarsky

Boyarsky v. Ross

Good Law
123 Cal. App. 267·1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 844·11 P.2d 641
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 2, 1932Docket No. 8454.California2,429 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

This is a proceeding in mandamus. In his petition the petitioner sets forth that on the ninth day of October, 1931, he was appointed as a deputy clerk in the Justice’s Court of Oakland Township in Alameda County and that thereafter he qualified and ever since has been a duly appointed, qualified and acting clerk in said court; that the salary attached to said position is fixed by section 103 c of the Code of Civil Procedure in the sum of $180 per month; that since the date of his appointment the amount of salary earned prior to the filing of this application was the sum of $198.56; that the defendant Auditor has refused to draw his warrant in payment of said salary and petitioner therefore asks a writ of mandate directing the payment. The respondent lias filed a demurrer and has also filed an answer. The petitioner states that: “The sole question presented for determination is whether the power of fixing the number and compensation of justices’ deputy clerks, of the justice’s court of Oakland township, county of Alameda, rests with the board of supervisors of that county or with the legislature of the state of California.” However, he divides his argument into two parts. In the…

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.