McPhail v. Jefferds

California Supreme Court

McPhail v. Jefferds

62 P. 735, 130 Cal. 480, 1900 Cal. LEXIS 867

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 10, 1900

DocketSac. Nos. 728, 729, 730, 756.

StatusPublished

This text of 62 P. 735 (McPhail v. Jefferds) 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

McPhail v. Jefferds, 62 P. 735, 130 Cal. 480, 1900 Cal. LEXIS 867 (Cal. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

These cases were submitted by stipulation, along with Ellis v. Jefferds, ante, p. 478, on briefs on file. The only difference between the cases is that the plaintiffs here are 'deputy officers, viz., Clark and De Witt deputy district attorneys, McPhail deputy county superintendent, and Bliss deputy county clerk. We do not, however, regard •this difference as material. Under section 173 of the act of 1893 these deputies are all provided for, and. their salaries fixed.

Under the act of 1897, by section 59, which is a re-enactment of section 61 of the old act, the new officers have the same power as before to appoint deputies. But by section 215 they are to be paid by their principals, whose salaries are increased. The office is, therefore, not abolished, but the compensation of the deputies, is changed. Their case, therefore, comes fairly under the language of section 233, and certainly within the intention of the act. To deprive the incumbent district attorney of his paid deputies, and to require him to pay for *482 necessary assistance out of Ms own pocket, would be very materially to “affect” Mm. . I

The eases, we think, cannot be distingMshed from the principal case, and on the authority of that case the judgments and orders appealed from are affirmed. ,

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

THE COURT.

These cases were submitted by stipulation, along with Ellis v. Jefferds, ante, p. 478, on briefs on file. The only difference between the cases is that the plaintiffs here are 'deputy officers, viz., Clark and De Witt deputy district attorneys, McPhail deputy county superintendent, and Bliss deputy county clerk. We do not, however, regard •this difference as material. Under section 173 of the act of 1893 these deputies are all provided for, and. their salaries fixed.

Under the act of 1897, by section 59, which is a re-enactment of section 61 of the old act, the new officers have the same power as before to appoint deputies. But by section 215 they are to be paid by their principals, whose salaries are increased. The office is, therefore, not abolished, but the compensation of the deputies, is changed. Their case, therefore, comes fairly under the language of section 233, and certainly within the intention of the act. To deprive the incumbent district attorney of his paid deputies, and to require him to pay for *482 necessary assistance out of Ms own pocket, would be very materially to “affect” Mm. . I

The eases, we think, cannot be distingMshed from the principal case, and on the authority of that case the judgments and orders appealed from are affirmed. ,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 P. 735, 130 Cal. 480, 1900 Cal. LEXIS 867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcphail-v-jefferds-cal-1900.