May

Tulare County v. May

Good Law
118 Cal. 303·1897 Cal. LEXIS 765·50 P. 427
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 17, 1897Sac. Nos. 92, 181, 214California1,973 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Beatty, J.

These three appeals involve one and tbe same principal question, viz., tbe constitutionality of -certain provisions of tbe County Government Act of 1893 relating to tbe appointment and salaries of various deputy officers in counties of tbe eleventh class, in which Tulare county stands alone. Tbe first is from a judgment dismissing a suit to enjoin tbe county treasurer from paying tbe salaries in question; tbe second is from a similar judgment in a suit to enjoin tbe county auditor from drawing salary warrants; and tbe third is from a judgment awarding a peremptory writ of mandate to tbe auditor to draw his warrants for such salaries. If tbe provisions referred to are constitutional, tbe judgments should all be affirmed; if unconstitutional, tbe judgments must all be reversed.

Tbe provisions of the act governing tbe compensation of officers of counties of tbe eleventh class (Tulare county) are to be found on pages 415 and 416 of tbe Statutes of 1893, and are as follows:

It is contended by the appellant that all of the above quoted provisions empowering the sheriff, district attorney, clerk, etc., to appoint deputies, and requiring the payment of their salaries out of the county…

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.