From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Speegle v. Joy

Supreme Court of California
Mar 22, 1882
60 Cal. 278 (Cal. 1882)

Opinion

         Department Two

         Application for writ of mandamus.

         COUNSEL

          S. M. Swinnerton, for Plaintiff.

         N. A. Dorn, for Defendant.


         OPINION

         The Court:

         The plaintiff is the Recorder and the defendant the Auditor of Monterey County. Plaintiff claims that there is due him the sum of one hundred and sixty-six dollars, one month's salary as such Recorder, and that it is the duty of the defendant, as Auditor, to draw his warrant in favor of the plaintiff for that amount; that demand has been made for such warrant, and defendant has refused to draw it. This is an application for a writ of mandamus.

         It is conceded that the writ should issue if the Act of March 30, 1878 (Laws of 1877-78. p. 863), is in force. That Act, so far as the salary of the Recorder of Monterey County is concerned, was by its provisions to go into effect on the first Monday of March, 1880. In the case of Peachy v. The Board of Supervisors of Calaveras County , 8 P. C. L. J. 813, this Department held that such an Act as the one now before us never did go into effect, as Section 1, Article xxii, of the new Constitution went into effect on the first day of January, 1880, and provided that " all laws in force at the adoption of this Constitution not inconsistent therewith shall remain in full force and effect until altered or repealed by the Legislature."

         It was the Act in force at that date that was kept in existence, and the Act that was, by its terms, to go into effect at a future day, was defeated.

         Writ denied.


Summaries of

Speegle v. Joy

Supreme Court of California
Mar 22, 1882
60 Cal. 278 (Cal. 1882)
Case details for

Speegle v. Joy

Case Details

Full title:M. M. SPEEGLE v. J. G. JOY

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Mar 22, 1882

Citations

60 Cal. 278 (Cal. 1882)

Citing Cases

County of Los Angeles v. Lamb

Section 33 of the Act now under consideration is in the following words: " The provisions of this Act, so far…

City of Gaylord v. City Clerk

In the above case, it will be noted that the court not only held the law to be in force but also that the new…