Myers v. Hamilton
60 Cal. 289, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 446
Opinion
The petitioner applies for a writ of review to correct alleged errors of the respondents in declaring a vacancy in the office of Supervisor, and in appointing a person to fill the vacancy.
Even if the appointing power rested with the respondents, the exercise of that power was not the exercise of a judicial function within the meaning of Section 1068, C. C. P. (People v. Bush, 40 Cal. 344.)
The motion to quash the proceedings is granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Myers v. Hamilton, 60 Cal. 289, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 446 (Cal. 1882).
60 Cal. 289 (Myers v. Hamilton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Wulzen v. Bd. of Supervisors of City & Cty of San Francisco
35 P. 353 (California Supreme Court, 1894)