City & County of Sacramento v. Bird

15 Cal. 294
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1860
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 15 Cal. 294 (City & County of Sacramento v. Bird) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City & County of Sacramento v. Bird, 15 Cal. 294 (Cal. 1860).

Opinions

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Baldwin, J. concurring.

This case comes up on an agreed statement. The suit is brought to recover of the defendant a sum. of money in his hands, claimed to belong to the plaintiff, and which the defendant received from the State Treasury, as a compensation allowed by the general law to the Treasurers of the counties, for paying money in their hands into the State Treasury. It is claimed by the plaintiff that this sum, under the twenty-eighth section of the Act to incorporate the city and county of Sacramento, (Acts of 1858, 277) belongs to the corporation.

We think the plaintiff entitled to recover. The twenty-fourth section of the Act of 1858, provides that the Treasurer of the city and county shall receive the sum of $3,000 per annum, as a compensation for his services, and the twenty-eighth section of the same act provides that every officer, or other person, having the control, collection, or custody of any money collected for taxes, licenses, water rents, fees of office, or for any other account' not otherwise herein provided, shall pay the same into the Treasury,” etc. This statute evidently intended that the Treasurer should only receive for his official services the compensation of $3,000 therein provided. The fact that the per centage, which he claims the right to retain, came from the State for money paid by him into the State Treasury, makes no difference. He received this money and paid it in, as an officer of the city and county, and this constituted a part of the services for which his salary was paid.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ex Parte Olden
1948 OK CR 108 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1948)
The Morris Plan Co. v. Johnson
100 P.2d 493 (California Court of Appeal, 1940)
Miller v. School District No. 1
211 P. 174 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1922)
Gill v. Goldfield Consolidated Mines Co.
176 P. 784 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1919)
Giménez v. Brenes
10 P.R. 124 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1906)
People v. Ames
27 Colo. 126 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1900)
Strickland v. Geide
49 P. 982 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1897)
Barden v. Wells
36 P. 1076 (Montana Supreme Court, 1894)
State ex rel. Gonzalez v. Palmes
23 Fla. 620 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1887)
Phillips v. Eureka County
19 Nev. 348 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1886)
Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Ryan
2 Wyo. 391 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1881)
State v. Mayor of Jersey City
40 N.J.L. 257 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1878)
Gibbons v. Brittenum
56 Miss. 232 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1878)
Ogbourne v. Ogbourne's Adm'r
60 Ala. 616 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1877)
Culver v. Third National Bank
64 Ill. 528 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1872)
State v. Conkling
19 Cal. 501 (California Supreme Court, 1861)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 Cal. 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-county-of-sacramento-v-bird-cal-1860.