Legal Opinion · Concurrence

White v. Hayden

California Supreme Court

Decided November 9, 1899No. L.A. No. 460Published

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. A. R. Conklin, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1ConcurrenceBeatty, C. J.

—I concur in the judgment solely because it is a necessary conclusion from the point decided in Ellis v. Tulare County, 44 Pac. Rep. 575. That case was decided in Department, but a petition for a rehearing in Bank was denied, and the decision, therefore, became the decision of the whole court. I thought at the time, and still think, the statutory provisions relating to the compensation .of supervisors when acting as road commissioners were misconstrued in that case, but when acting as a member of a Department of the court I am bound by the decision of the court in Bank. '

Temple, J., concurred.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Ellis v. Tulare CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896