County of Los Angeles v. Lamb
California Supreme Court
Appeal .from a judgment for the plaintiff in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles. _ Howard, J. « The defendant was elected Recorder of Los Angeles County on September 3, 1879, and went into office on the first day of March, 1880. The action was brought for the recovery of the fees of office collected by the defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Thornton, J.:
The statute of April 27, 1878 (Stats. 1877-8, p. 574), was a perfect law when it was approved on the day above named, and went into effect when the other portions of the law did. Because it happened that there was then an incumbent to which the statute did not apply, and whose term did not expire until March, 1880, did not prevent the statute" of 1878 from going into effect, but merely postponed its operation as to the successor (Lamb) of the incumbent until he took office. It did not operate in this case until March, 1880, because the casus statuti did not exist until that date,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Peachey v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
3Cited by5 opinions
- Ross v. Board of RetirementCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Callahan v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- Estate of RountreeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Johnston v. AlexisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Cory v. RountreeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983