Hartnett

City & County of San Francisco v. Hartnett

Good Law
1 Cal. App. 652·1905 Cal. App. LEXIS 166·82 P. 1064
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 27, 1905No. 60.California1,663 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hall, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of defendants entered after failure of plaintiff to amend complaint upon order sustaining defendants’ general demurrer to the complaint.

The action was brought against defendants as the sureties on a bail-bond given by them to secure the appearance of one Calnan, to answer to the charge of grand larceny in the police court of the city and county of San Francisco.

Respondent, the demurring party in the trial court, urges that the bond sued on is void for the reason (among others also urged) that, as appears by the allegations of the complaint, the amount of the bail was fixed by the assistant warrant and bond clerk, and not by order of a court or magistrate. Appellant contends that the charter of the city and county of San Francisco vests authority in the warrant and bond clerk to fix the amount of bail by persons charged with crime, and also that if this is not so, the bond in suit is nevertheless good as a common-law bond.

Passing the point made by respondent that a charter provision, vesting in the warrant and bond clerk the power to admit to bail, would be unconstitutional, as vesting judicial functions in a ministerial officer…

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.