Sherbourne v. Yuba Cty.

21 Cal. 113
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1862
StatusPublished
Cited by41 cases

This text of 21 Cal. 113 (Sherbourne v. Yuba Cty.) 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
Sherbourne v. Yuba Cty., 21 Cal. 113 (Cal. 1862).

Opinion

Norton, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Field, C. J. and Cope, J. concurring.

The plaintiff in this action seeks to recover compensation from the county of Yuba for the damage which he sustained by reason . of the unskillful treatment he received from the Resident Physician, and the insufficient and unwholesome food and other necessaries sup- 6 plied him while in the County Hospital as an indigent sick person.

A demurrer to the complaint was sustained by the Court below, and from the judgment the plaintiff has appealed.

The plaintiff insists that the county is required by law to provide for its indigent sick in a suitable manner, and is liable to an action for the misfeasance of its employés. No case has been cited to us in which such an action has been sustained; nor do we think this action can be sustained upon principle. Private corporations and [115]*115municipal corporations may be liable for the acts of their employes, of whom they have the appointment and supervision, and when the duty to be performed is for the benefit of the corporation. But a quasi corporation, like a county, is not liable for the acts of officers or employés which it appoints in the exercise of a portion of the sovereign power of the State, by the requirements of a public law, and simply for the public benefit, and for a purpose from which the county, as a corporation, derives no benefit. (Fowle v. The Common Council of Alexandria, 3 Pet. 398; The Mayor, etc., of N. Y. v. Bailey, 3 Hill, 531, and cases cited by Senator Hand at pp. 447, 448.)

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District
359 P.2d 457 (California Supreme Court, 1961)
Talley v. Northern San Diego County Hospital District
257 P.2d 22 (California Supreme Court, 1953)
Madison v. City & County of San Francisco
234 P.2d 995 (California Court of Appeal, 1951)
Latham v. Santa Clara County Hospital
231 P.2d 513 (California Court of Appeal, 1951)
Shaffer v. Monongalia General Hospital
62 S.E.2d 795 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1950)
Barlow v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District
216 P.2d 903 (California Court of Appeal, 1950)
Griffin v. County of Colusa
113 P.2d 270 (California Court of Appeal, 1941)
Leach v. Dinsmore
65 P.2d 1364 (California Court of Appeal, 1937)
Union Bank & Trust Co. v. County of Los Angeles
38 P.2d 442 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Davie v. Board of Regents, University of California
227 P. 243 (California Court of Appeal, 1924)
Emery v. Jewish Hospital Ass'n
236 S.W. 577 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1921)
Croft v. Millard County Drainage Dist. No. 1
202 P. 539 (Utah Supreme Court, 1921)
Davis v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co.
196 S.W. 603 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1917)
Butler v. City of Kansas City
155 P. 12 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1916)
James v. Trustees of Wellston Township
1907 OK 22 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1907)
Cunningham v. City of Seattle
84 P. 641 (Washington Supreme Court, 1906)
Parks v. Northwestern University
121 Ill. App. 512 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1905)
Twyman's Admr. v. Board of Council
78 S.W. 446 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1904)
Haggerty v. St. Louis, Keokuk & Northwestern Railroad
74 S.W. 456 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1903)
Nicholson v. City of Detroit
56 L.R.A. 601 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 Cal. 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherbourne-v-yuba-cty-cal-1862.