Legal Opinion

Sherman v. County of Santa Barbara

California Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1881No. 7,741PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in the Superior Court of the County of Santa Barbara. Hatch, J.

1Opinion of the Court

McKinstry, J.:

The only matter in dispute in this case is as to the construction of a clause of the Act “ to regulate fees of office,” etc. (Stat. 1869-70, 148.) The Sheriff is thereby allowed to charge: “For every mile necessarily traveled, in going only, in executing any warrant of arrest, subpoena, or venire, bringing up a prisoner on habeas corpus, taking prisoners before a magistrate or to prison, or for mileage in any criminal case or proceeding; provided, that in serving a subpoena or venire, where two,or more jurors or witnesses live in the same direction, but one mileage shall be…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Yavapai County v. O'NeillArizona Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Saslow v. Andrew (In re Loretto Winery Ltd.)Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
  3. Steenerson v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
  4. In Re Loretto Winery Limited, Debtor (Two Cases). Les Saslow, D/B/A Sun Valley Associates, Formerly Known as California Ranch Management Charles Tagliabue Ccrc Farms Chip Arnett Chris Miloslavich v. Paul B. Andrew, Trustee, Valley Farm Management, Inc., Individually and on Behalf of Equitable Life Assurance Society Richard R. Smith Ned Spieker J & L Farms, Inc. Hein Ranch Company v. Paul B. Andrew, TrusteeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API