Griffin v. Dingley

46 P. 457, 114 Cal. 481, 1896 Cal. LEXIS 929
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 8, 1896
DocketS. F. No. 706
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 46 P. 457 (Griffin v. Dingley) 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
Griffin v. Dingley, 46 P. 457, 114 Cal. 481, 1896 Cal. LEXIS 929 (Cal. 1896).

Opinion

The Court.

Application for a writ of mandate. ' The respondent is the county clerk of Stanislaus county and, on the fifth day of October, 1896, the petitioner presented to him for filing a certificate, duly authenticated by the proper officers, of the nomination by the county convention of the Democratic party of that county, held September 7, 1896, of. certain candidates for public offices to be filled by the electors of that county at the coming general election. The respondent refused to file the same, alleging, as a reason therefor, that that day was a holiday, and also because the same was not presented for filing within the time required by law. The petitioner again presented the certificate to him on the sixth day of October, with the request that it be filed, but the respondent again refused to file the same, for the reason that it was not presented to him for filing within the time required by law. The present application is for a writ of mandate, command[483]*483ing the respondent to receive and file the said certificate.

Section 1192 of the Political Code, as amended in 1895 (Stats. 1895, p. 303), provides: “ Certificates of nomination required to be filed with the county clerks, or with the clerk or secretary of the legislative body of any city or town, shall be filed not more than fifty nor less than thirty days before the day of election, when the nomination is made by a convention.” It is contended by the petitioner that, under this provision, the fourth day of October was the last day on which the certificate could be filed, but that,. as that day was Sunday, by virtue of sections 12 and 13 of the Political Code, he was entitled to file it on the next day that was not a holiday, and, as the - fifth day of October was a legal holiday, his presentation of the certificate to the respondent on the 6th was in time, and that the respondent should have filed it. We are of the opinion, however, that these provisions of the Political Code are inapplicable. Section 12 provides that a holiday shall be excluded when it is the last day of the time “in which ” any act provided by law is to be done; and section 13 refers to an act which is appointed to be done “upon” a particular day. In the present case, however, the statute does not fix the day upon which or the time within which the certificate is to be filed, but declares that it shall be filed “ not less ” than thirty days before the day of election. To hold that it could be filed twenty-eight days before the day of election would be in manifest disregard of the provisions of the statute.

The application for the writ is denied.

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

Related

National General Premier Ins. Co. v. Haro CA2/8
California Court of Appeal, 2025
Tran v. Fountain Valley Community Hospital
51 Cal. App. 4th 1464 (California Court of Appeal, 1997)
Barnes v. Wong
33 Cal. App. 4th 390 (California Court of Appeal, 1995)
Daniels v. Tergeson
211 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (California Court of Appeal, 1989)
Deleon v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District
658 P.2d 108 (California Supreme Court, 1983)
Koella v. State Ex Rel. Moffett
405 S.W.2d 184 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1966)
In Re Rodriguez
388 P.2d 881 (California Supreme Court, 1964)
Cross v. Cohen
183 Misc. 611 (New York Supreme Court, 1944)
McKesson v. Donaghue
147 P.2d 377 (California Supreme Court, 1944)
State Ex Rel. Earley v. Batchelor
130 P.2d 72 (Washington Supreme Court, 1942)
Steele v. Bartlett
116 P.2d 780 (California Supreme Court, 1941)
Hutchins v. County Clerk
35 P.2d 563 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Burtch v. Medin
210 N.W. 187 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1926)
Seawell v. Gifford
125 P. 182 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1912)
Brodie v. Hook
121 S.W. 979 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1909)
Chandler v. Mott-Smith
19 Haw. 225 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1908)
Partridge v. Devoto
82 P. 775 (California Supreme Court, 1905)
State ex rel. Eastham v. Dewey
101 N.W. 1134 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1904)
Napton v. Meek
70 P. 945 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1902)
State ex rel. Anderson v. Falley
83 N.W. 913 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 P. 457, 114 Cal. 481, 1896 Cal. LEXIS 929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-v-dingley-cal-1896.