Shay

Shay v. Roth

Good Law
1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 129·64 Cal. App. 314·221 P. 967
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 31, 1923Civ. No. 4415.California5,148 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Shenk, J.

Application for writ of mandate to compel the respondent, as auditor of the county of San Bernardino, to issue a warrant on the county treasurer directing the payment of the sum of three hundred dollars to petitioner as salary due him for the month of May, 1923, as sheriff of said county.

Petitioner was elected to the office of sheriff at the general election held November 7, 1922. His term of office commenced on the eighth day of January, 1923. At the same general election of November 7, 1922, the people of the county of San Bernardino ratified a proposed amendment to the charter of said county. The amendment added two new sections to article II of the charter which read as follows:

The amendment so ratified was approved by the legislature on the twenty-ninth day of January, 1923. Prior to the amendment the salary attached to the office of sheriff as established by the charter of the county was two thousand four hundred dollars per annum.

It is the contention of the respondent that the charter amendment increasing the petitioner’s salary did not take effect or become a law until January 29, 1923, a date subsequent to the election of petitioner and after the commencement of his…

dissent Opinion

Conrey, J.

The constitution, in article XI, section 7^, provides that the charter of a county when duly adopted and approved “shall become the organic law thereof relative to the matters therein provided. ’ ’ The amendment to the charter of San Bernardino County, having been so adopted and approved, is a part of that organic law. The provisions of said section 7% were contained in that section as adopted in the year 1911 and remain unchanged in the same section as amended in 1914. Section 9 of article XI of the constitution has not been amended since the adoption of the constitution in 1879. It reads as follows: “The compensation of any county, city, town, or municipal officer shall not be increased after his election or during his term of office; nor shall the term of any such officer be extended beyond the period for which he is elected or appointed.” Respondent contends that this provision of section 9 is applicable to officers of county governments operating under freeholders’ charters. This proposition is denied by petitioner. This presents the only question in the case.

Said section 7% of the constitution provides that “it shall be competent, in all charters, framed under 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.