Humiston

Humiston v. Shaffer

Good Law
145 Cal. 195·1904 Cal. LEXIS 566·78 P. 651
Supreme Court of CaliforniaOctober 29, 1904L.A. No. 1577.California1,526 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Cooper, J.

The plaintiff was employed in the office of the district attorney of the county of San Diego during the month of January, 1904, and did certain typewriting for the district attorney during said month, from the second to the twenty-ninth days inclusive. She presented a claim against the county, duly itemized and verified, showing the total amount of the claim to be $49.30. The claim consisted of one hundred different items performed by plaintiff for the district attorney as stenographer and typewriter, the work being in connection with the official duties of the district attorney, and consisted in writing letters to various parties, letters advising certain county officers as to the correct performance of their official duties, letters of advice to the county board of supervisors, the writing of pleadings and judgments in civil actions in behalf of the county, and in writing and copying criminal informations. The claim was allowed by the board of supervisors of the county.

The defendant, as county auditor, refused to draw his war rant for the amount, and the court below, having heard the facts, ordered judgment for plaintiff awarding her a writ of mandate against defendant,…

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.