Jobson v. Fennell
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The plaintiff, in 1867, recovered judgment, in the Court of William H. Bell, a Justice of the Peace in and for said city and county, against one Richard Merriman, for the sum of eighty dollars, with interest and costs.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The plaintiff, in 1867, recovered judgment, in the Court of William H. Bell, a Justice of the Peace in and for said city and county, against one Richard Merriman, for the sum of eighty dollars, with interest and costs. Thereafter, in the same year, upon an execution issued on said judgment, a levy was made on a certain lot in said city and county, as the property of said Merriman, and at the sale thereunder, the plaintiff became the purchaser for the sum of one hundred and sixty-one dollars, which…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sanderson, J.:
The general rule of the common law is, that officers who exercise judicial functions cannot act by deputy, but those who exercise merely ministerial functions may, without express authority to that effect. Accordingly, it was early settled that a Sheriff, in the exercise of his ministerial fune*713tions, could act by deputy; but otherwise, in respect to his judicial functions, because no express authority to that effect was given in his patent. (Gwynne on Sheriffs, 38.) So in respect to Constables. (Medhurst v. Waite, 3 Burr, 1,259; Rex v. Clarke, 1 Dunford and East.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Taylor v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1854
3Cited by4 opinions
- Wines v. GarrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Wright v. LaugenourCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Prickett v. CleekOregon Supreme Court · 1886
- Kaysen v. SteeleUtah Supreme Court · 1896