State Ex Rel. Love v. County Commissioners
Nevada Supreme Court
Original application for writ of mandate-. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. I. Respondents being charged by law with the duty of acting upon relator’s demand, and having neglected and refused to do so may be^ compelled to act thereon by mandate of this court. II. The act of March 5, 1887, is irreconcilably repugnant to-the act of February 23, 1887, so far as Elko county is affected, and being a later statute must be given effect.
Read the full summary
Original application for writ of mandate-. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. I. Respondents being charged by law with the duty of acting upon relator’s demand, and having neglected and refused to do so may be^ compelled to act thereon by mandate of this court. II. The act of March 5, 1887, is irreconcilably repugnant to-the act of February 23, 1887, so far as Elko county is affected, and being a later statute must be given effect. (Sedgwick on Const, and Stat. Law, p. 123, el seq.; Estate of Walley, 11 Nev. 260; United States v. Barr, 4 Saw. 254).. I. The act of March 5 has no…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Hawley, C. J.:
This is an application for mandamus to compel respondents to act upon relator’s claim for fifty dollars for one month’s compensation as county superintendent of schools. In 1885 the legislature passed “ an act regulating the compensations of county officers in the several counties of this state, and other matters relating thereto” (approved March 11, 1885). Section 5 of this act fixed the compensation of all the county officers of Elko county, and, among other things, provided that the sheriff “ shall receive such fees as are allowed under the provisions of an act *…
2Cited by4 opinions
- People v. LloydIllinois Supreme Court · 1922
- State ex rel. Hay v. HindsonMontana Supreme Court · 1910
- State Ex Rel. Dunkle v. BeardNevada Supreme Court · 1892
- Collins Coal Co. v. HadleyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1905