Humburg

Humburg v. Board of Police & Fire Commissioners

Good Law
1915 Cal. App. LEXIS 125·27 Cal. App. 6·148 P. 802
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 20, 1915Civ. No. 1313.California1,848 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Burnett, J.

This is one of three cases which were tried together as they involve practically the same facts and principles. Each was a special proceeding to obtain a writ of mandate to compel defendants to pay respondent a certain salary claimed to be due him as police officer of said city and also to restore him to office as said policeman. The three cases have been argued here together and will be treated in one opinion.

Humburg was employed as a member of the police department in 1891, De Carli in 1904, and Narvaez in 1905. They continued to discharge their duties as such until July 22, 1908, when charges were preferred against them by the chief of police for “interfering in politics” in violation of section 13 of article 10 of the city charter. They were thereupon suspended from duty without further pay. Thereafter they sought a writ of prohibition to restrain the board of police and fire commissioners from hearing or trying the charge so made against them. While this application was pending, said board, on August 26, 1908, ma'de an order declaring that, in order to keep within the allowance made for the maintenance of the police and fire department, the police department should…

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.