Porter v. Haight
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, County of Marin. This is an action of trespass for a forcible interference with the plaintiff’s business and trade property.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, County of Marin. This is an action of trespass for a forcible interference with the plaintiff’s business and trade property. The defendants were the Board of Directors of the State Prison, at San Quentin, and were the successors in office of the Board which made the contract, in 1865, as hereinafter mentioned, and entered upon the discharge of their duties on the first Monday in December, 1867, to continue in office four years thereafter. The plaintiff was engaged in the manufacture of leather work at the State Prison,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Niles, J.:
We have not been referred to, nor can we find any statute which directly authorizes the Board of Directors to enter into any contract for the employment of convict labor. The Act of April 24th, 1858, prescribing the powers and duties of the Board, contains no such authorization. This power may, perhaps, be inferred from the general power, given to the Board by this Act, to manage and control the convicts and prison labor, and from an implied recognition by the Legislature of the validity of such contracts contained in section three of the Act of April 4th, 1864,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Martin v. MottSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- Jenkins v. WaldronNew York Supreme Court · 1814
3Cited by13 opinions
- Sutro v. PettitCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- People v. HagarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877
- De Merritt v. WeldonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- McConnell v. Arkansas Brick & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1902
- Emery v. LittlejohnWashington Supreme Court · 1915
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.