Summerland

Summerland v. Bicknell

Good Law
111 Cal. 567·1896 Cal. LEXIS 624·44 P. 232
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 17, 1896S. F. No. 166California1,054 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

This is a petition by the plaintiff, as assessor of Los Angeles county, for a writ of mandamus to the defendant, as auditor of said county, directing the latter to audit the accounts of the former, and to allow him fifteen per cent on all state and road poll taxes, and six per cent on all personal property taxes collected by said assessor.

Various sections of the Political Code and of the County Government Act are cited by counsel in their briefs; but in determining the question here presented it is only necessary to consider sections 162 and 216 of the County Government Act, as amended by the act of January 25, 1895—to be found on pages 1 to 11 of the statutes of 1895. By said section 162 the several counties of the state are classified according to their population “ for the purpose of regulating the compensation of all officers,” and by that classification Los Angeles is in the second class, and at present is the only county in that class. Section 216 provides that the salaries and fees mentioned in the act shall be in full for all services rendered by officers and their deputies and assistants, and that the principals must pay their own deputies except as otherwise provided…

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.