Ryan v. Johnson

5 Cal. 86
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1855·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Murray, C. J., concurred.

The Act to prevent extortion in office, Cod. Laws, 214, is not liable to objection on the ground of any conflict with the Constitution. The defendant may, by virtue of the last section of the Act, have a jury trial as well in that, as in any other action.

Nor is the respondent’s objection well founded jo the Act regulating Fees in Office. It is not an Act of a general nature, within the meaning of the Constitution—it is entirely of a specific character.

The demurrer ought to have been overruled.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

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

Ryan v. Johnson, 5 Cal. 86 (Cal. 1855).

5 Cal. 86 (Ryan v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Russell v. Esmeralda County
32 Nev. 304 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1910)
State v. Spellmire
67 Ohio St. (N.S.) 77 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1902)
State ex rel. Williams v. Fogus
19 Nev. 247 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1885)
State ex rel. Jury Commissioners v. Mayor of New Orleans
2 McGl. 46 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1884)
Boggs v. Merced Mining Co.
14 Cal. 279 (California Supreme Court, 1859)