Pendegast

People ex rel. Snowball v. Pendegast

Good Law
1892 Cal. LEXIS 945·96 Cal. 289·31 P. 103
Supreme Court of CaliforniaOctober 3, 1892Nos. 15184, 15185California3,087 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Beatty, J.

— These are original applications for writs of mandate.

The relator is a citizen of Yolo County, and possesses the qualifications entitling him to represent the senatorial district of which Yolo County is a part. He claims that under the constitution and laws of the state a senator is to be elected in said district at the approaching election, and he has been regularly nominated as a candidate for the office. He has made formal demand upon the governor to issue his proclamation for the election of a senator from said district, and upon the county clerk of Yolo County to file his certificate of nomination *290 pursuant to the election law. Both demands have been refused, and he seeks by these proceedings to enforce compliance therewith. In each case a general demurrer to the petition has been interposed, which raises the question whether, under a proper construction of the constitution and laws of the state, the terms of the senators elected in the year 1890 from the even-numbered senatorial districts, as well as those of the senators elected in 1888 from the odd-numbered districts, expire on the first Monday after the first day of January next. If they do not so expire, — if,…

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.