Legal Opinion

Crandall v. Amador County

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1862PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from the Sixteenth Judicial District. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court.

1Opinion of the CourtField, C. J.

A question of difference existing between the parties as to the liability of the county of Amador for the payment of jurors’ fees in certain criminal actions before Justices of the Peace of that county, an agreed case was made under the statute, and the question submitted to the decision of the District Court (Prac. Act, sec. 377). The plaintiff claims that the county is indebted to him in the sum of four hundred and eighty-six dollars; and the facts as admitted are, that the plaintiff and other parties, whose demands have been assigned to him, rendered services as jurors in criminal actions…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People v. RomeroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  2. People ex rel. Perry v. ThompsonNew York Supreme Court · 1857
  3. People ex rel. S.F. Gas Co. v. Bd. of Supervisors of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1858
  4. Neilson v. Commercial Mutual InsuranceThe Superior Court of New York City · 1854

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. People v. Lee Yune ChongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Oroville & Va. R.R. v. Supervisors of Plumas Cty.California Supreme Court · 1869
  3. Dufton v. DanielsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Meyer v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  5. Blair v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1917

9 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