Ryan v. Johnson

California Supreme Court

Ryan v. Johnson

5 Cal. 86

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1855

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 5 Cal. 86 (Ryan v. Johnson) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Cal. 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryan-v-johnson-cal-1855.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack