Pillsbury v. Brown

California Supreme Court

Pillsbury v. Brown

45 Cal. 46

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Pillsbury v. Brown. Read the opinion of the Court — 47 Cal. 477 →

California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1872·No. Nos. 3,423, 3,591·Published

Opinion

By the Court:

We are of the opinion that section four thousand three hundred and thirty of the Political Code as amended by the Act of March 28th, 1872 (Stats. 1871-2, p. 653), was intended to regulate the salaries of District Attorneys as contradistinguished from fees, to which they were entitled under existing laws, and was not intended and did not have the effect to repeal prior statutes, allowing fees in addition to salaries.

Peremptory mandate as prayed for ordered in each case.

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

By the Court:

We are of the opinion that section four thousand three hundred and thirty of the Political Code as amended by the Act of March 28th, 1872 (Stats. 1871-2, p. 653), was intended to regulate the salaries of District Attorneys as contradistinguished from fees, to which they were entitled under existing laws, and was not intended and did not have the effect to repeal prior statutes, allowing fees in addition to salaries.

Peremptory mandate as prayed for ordered in each case.

Pillsbury v. Brown, 45 Cal. 46 (Cal. 1872).

Pincite

45 Cal. 46 (Pillsbury v. Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.