Walser v. Austin

California Supreme Court

Walser v. Austin

37 P. 869, 104 Cal. 128, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 865

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 17, 1894

DocketNo. 18249

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 37 P. 869 (Walser v. Austin) 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

Walser v. Austin, 37 P. 869, 104 Cal. 128, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 865 (Cal. 1894).

Pincite

Opinions

De Haven, J.

It was held in the case of Welsh v. Bramlet, 98 Cal. 219, that subdivision 21 of section 170 [130]*130of the- County Government' Act, approved March 31, 1891 (Stats. 1891, p. 295), contains local and special legislation, and is in conflict with section 5 of article XI of the constitution of the state, which directs that the legislature by general and uniform laws shall provide for the election or appointment in the several counties of such county, township, and municipal officers “as public convenience may require, and shall prescribe their duties and fix their terms of office.” We can add nothing to the reasoning by which that conclusion was reached, and upon the authority of that case the judgment and order herein must be affirmed.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Fitzgeuald, J., concurred.

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

De Haven, J.

It was held in the case of Welsh v. Bramlet, 98 Cal. 219, that subdivision 21 of section 170 [130]*130of the- County Government' Act, approved March 31, 1891 (Stats. 1891, p. 295), contains local and special legislation, and is in conflict with section 5 of article XI of the constitution of the state, which directs that the legislature by general and uniform laws shall provide for the election or appointment in the several counties of such county, township, and municipal officers “as public convenience may require, and shall prescribe their duties and fix their terms of office.” We can add nothing to the reasoning by which that conclusion was reached, and upon the authority of that case the judgment and order herein must be affirmed.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Fitzgeuald, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 P. 869, 104 Cal. 128, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walser-v-austin-cal-1894.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack