Turner v. Melony
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Sixth District. Mandamus. In the fall of 1858, at a general election, Turner was elected District Judge of the Eighth District for six years. He demanded his commission before January 1st, 1859. The commission was refused by the Governor, who issued a commission for the same office to one Haynes. The title of Haynes to the office was then tested by a quo warranto, in the suit of “ The People ex rel.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Sixth District. Mandamus. In the fall of 1858, at a general election, Turner was elected District Judge of the Eighth District for six years. He demanded his commission before January 1st, 1859. The commission was refused by the Governor, who issued a commission for the same office to one Haynes. The title of Haynes to the office was then tested by a quo warranto, in the suit of “ The People ex rel. Saunders v. Paynes, (ante,) and resulted in a decision by this Court adversely to Haynes. The Governor then issued a commission to Turner, dated May 13th, 1859, as having been…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
Terry, C. J. concurring.
The Bespondent having been inducted into office, and his commission showing him entitled to it from the first day of January last, as Judge of the District Court, is entitled to the salary annexed to the office from that time.
The question of his eligibility cannot be tried on mandamus.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by7 opinions
- Klose v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Hallinan v. MellonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Satterlee v. San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Elliott v. Van DelinderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
- Clark v. MurtaghSupreme Court of Iowa · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.