Dillon

Dillon v. Bicknell

Good Law
116 Cal. 111·1897 Cal. LEXIS 518·47 P. 937
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 23, 1897L. A. No. 236California1,390 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

Plaintiff was elected district attorney of Los Angeles county at the general election in November, 1892, and entered upon his said office on the second day of January, 1893, that being the first Monday after the first day of January, and his term of office *112 expired on the seventh day of January, 1895, that being also the first Monday after the first day of January of that year. The salary was four thousand dollars per annum, and he received from the salary fund of the county eight thousand dollars, which was paid him in monthly installments of three hundred and thirty-three and one-third dollars per month, by warrants drawn by defendant upon the county treasurer, as provided by section 221 of the County Government Act of 1891. (Stats. 1891, p. 419.) Plaintiff, claiming that he served as district attorney five days more than two official years, demanded of the defendant, as such auditor, that he draw a warrant upon the county treasurer for his salary for said five days, amounting to fifty-four dollars and fifty cents. The auditor refused to issue said warrant, and the court below, upon the petition of the ■plaintiff, rendered judgment directing a peremptory writ of mandate to…

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.