Legal Opinion

Smith v. Mathews

California Supreme Court

Decided June 25, 1909No. S.F. No. 5008PublishedCited by 40 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtBeatty, C. J.

This is a proceeding in mandamus and presents only a question of statutory construction. In the year 1907 the petitioner was constable of Little Lake township in Mendocino County, his term of office having commenced in January of that year, and at a time when the compensation for his official services was regulated by section 1 of an act approved March 21, 1905, relating to the compensation of county officers in counties of the fourteenth class (Stats. 1905, p. 671). By that act he was allowed certain fees—but no salary.

On the eighteenth day of March, 1907, the governor approved an act…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Stevenson v. ColganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Harrison v. ColganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. Sacramento Newspaper Guild, Local 92 v. Sacramento County Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  2. Penziner v. West American Finance Co.California Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Olson v. CoryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Hays v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  5. People Ex Rel. Chapman v. Sacramento Drainage Dist.California Supreme Court · 1909

35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API