Paxson v. Hale

California Supreme Court

Paxson v. Hale

1 Cal. Unrep. 471

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 29, 1867

DocketNo. 1514

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Unrep. 471 (Paxson v. Hale) 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

Paxson v. Hale, 1 Cal. Unrep. 471 (Cal. 1867).

Pincite

Opinion

For other opinions in this case, see next page.

SANDERSON, J.

The offices of treasurer and fund com-missioner, though held by the same person, are so distinct and separate as they would be if held by different persons. The duties are separate and distinct and the same is true of the salaries annexed: Stats. 1855, p. 285, sec. 6. The statute creating the board of fund commissioners and fixing the compensation for their services is wholly unaffected by the subsequent legislation fixing their salaries as officers of the city government. The provision that their salaries, as officers of the city government, “shall be full compensation for all official services required of them by law” (Stats. 1861, p. 554, sec. 1), refers to their services as such officers and not as members of the board of fund commissioners.

Let a peremptory writ of mandamus issue.

We concur: Shafter, J.; Sawyer, J.; Currey, C. J.

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

For other opinions in this case, see next page.

SANDERSON, J.

The offices of treasurer and fund com-missioner, though held by the same person, are so distinct and separate as they would be if held by different persons. The duties are separate and distinct and the same is true of the salaries annexed: Stats. 1855, p. 285, sec. 6. The statute creating the board of fund commissioners and fixing the compensation for their services is wholly unaffected by the subsequent legislation fixing their salaries as officers of the city government. The provision that their salaries, as officers of the city government, “shall be full compensation for all official services required of them by law” (Stats. 1861, p. 554, sec. 1), refers to their services as such officers and not as members of the board of fund commissioners.

Let a peremptory writ of mandamus issue.

We concur: Shafter, J.; Sawyer, J.; Currey, C. J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Unrep. 471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paxson-v-hale-cal-1867.