Legal Opinion

Tuohy v. Chase

California Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1866PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal from the County Court, San Joaquin County. In 1857, the County of San Joaquin was divided by the County Board of Supervisors into three Supervisor Districts, under the Act of March 31st, 1857. (Wood’s Dig., p. 697.) These Districts were named respectively One, Two, and Three. In 1862, John Tuohy was elected Supervisor for District Number Two, which then contained the three Townships of Tulare, Dent, and Castoria.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the County Court, San Joaquin County. In 1857, the County of San Joaquin was divided by the County Board of Supervisors into three Supervisor Districts, under the Act of March 31st, 1857. (Wood’s Dig., p. 697.) These Districts were named respectively One, Two, and Three. In 1862, John Tuohy was elected Supervisor for District Number Two, which then contained the three Townships of Tulare, Dent, and Castoria. His term of office expired in the fall of 1865. The regular meetings of the Board, as fixed by law, were on the first Monday of May, August, November, and February of each…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court, Shafter, J.:

It is provided in the second section of the Act “to create a Board of Supervisors in the counties of this State and to define their duties and powers,” passed March 20th, 1855, (Acts of 1855, p. 51,) that “ the Board of Supervisors in these counties shall have authority at their last session before the general election in each year to change the boundaries of the (Supervisor) districts in .their said respective counties.” Time, here, is not bf the essence of the power conferred. “ The (general) rule is that where time is prescribed to a public body in the exercise of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. People v. AllenNew York Supreme Court · 1831
  2. People ex rel. Jacobs v. MurrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Board of Excise v. Board of Directors of School Dist. No. 27Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
  2. In re TaylorNew York Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Untitled California Attorney General Opinion, California Attorney General Reports2022

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

Powered by the Exa API