Donlon

Donlon v. Jewett

Good Law
1891 Cal. LEXIS 728·88 Cal. 530·26 P. 370
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 1, 1891No. 14334California1,833 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Beatty, J.

The petitioner is assessor and the respondent auditor of Ventura County, and it is the duty of the latter, prescribed by law, to draw his warrant at the end of each month for a monthly installment of the salary of the former. At the end of the month of January, petitioner demanded a warrant for his Jan- *531 nary salary, claiming that Ventura was a county of the ihirty-ninth-and-one-half class, and that his annual salary as assessor of a county of that class was three thousand two hundred dollars. But the respondent, being in doubt whether Ventura was, according to a correct construction of the statute, a county of the thirty-ninth-and-one-balf class, or of the forty-first class, in which the assessor’s salary is less than three thousand two hundred dollars, refused to draw his warrant on that basis. Thereupon this original proceeding was commenced here for a writ of mandate to compel the auditor to perform his supposed duty.

There is an entire agreement between the parties as to all matters of fact, and the only question in the case is one of statutory construction.

Section 5 of article 11 of the constitution enjoins upon the legislature the duty of providing for a uniform…

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.