Covarrubias v. Bd. of Supervisors of Santa Barbara Cty.

California Supreme Court

Covarrubias v. Bd. of Supervisors of Santa Barbara Cty.

52 Cal. 622

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1878

DocketNo. 5841

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 52 Cal. 622 (Covarrubias v. Bd. of Supervisors of Santa Barbara Cty.) 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

Covarrubias v. Bd. of Supervisors of Santa Barbara Cty., 52 Cal. 622 (Cal. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Coubt :

The proceeding had in the District Court of the First Judicial District against Covarrubias, and which resulted in a judgment removing him from his office of Sheriff, was had under the provisions of the Act of March 30th, 1874, (p. 911) and not under the provisions of the Penal Code (sec. 772).

On the same day on which the judgment was rendered, Covarrubias took and perfected an appeal to this Court from the judgment, by filing and serving a notice of appeal, and executing and filing an undertaking on appeal, as prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure (sec. 941).

The statute provides for an appeal in a case of this character (Code Civil Procedure, sec. 939).

And the judgment rendered in the District Court not being of the character mentioned in secs. 942, 943, 944, or 945 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the perfecting of the appeal by giving the undertaking ipso facto operated a supersedeas (sec. 949); for it was not adjudged in the District Court, nor could it have been properly adjudged in this proceeding, that the petitioner was guilty of usurping or intruding into the office of Sheriff, or “ unlawfully holding ” that office within the intent of sec. 949, just referred to.

It results that the demurrer to the petition must be overruled, and it is so ordered, with leave to the respondents to answer within ten days.

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

By the Coubt :

The proceeding had in the District Court of the First Judicial District against Covarrubias, and which resulted in a judgment removing him from his office of Sheriff, was had under the provisions of the Act of March 30th, 1874, (p. 911) and not under the provisions of the Penal Code (sec. 772).

On the same day on which the judgment was rendered, Covarrubias took and perfected an appeal to this Court from the judgment, by filing and serving a notice of appeal, and executing and filing an undertaking on appeal, as prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure (sec. 941).

The statute provides for an appeal in a case of this character (Code Civil Procedure, sec. 939).

And the judgment rendered in the District Court not being of the character mentioned in secs. 942, 943, 944, or 945 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the perfecting of the appeal by giving the undertaking ipso facto operated a supersedeas (sec. 949); for it was not adjudged in the District Court, nor could it have been properly adjudged in this proceeding, that the petitioner was guilty of usurping or intruding into the office of Sheriff, or “ unlawfully holding ” that office within the intent of sec. 949, just referred to.

It results that the demurrer to the petition must be overruled, and it is so ordered, with leave to the respondents to answer within ten days.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 Cal. 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/covarrubias-v-bd-of-supervisors-of-santa-barbara-cty-cal-1878.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack